DOJ Revives Federal Firearm Rights Restoration After 30-Year Shutdown

A federal firearm-rights restoration process is reopening after more than three decades, but the Second Amendment remains a constitutional right—not a government-issued privilege. AI-generated illustration by AmmoLand News.

United States Attorney General Todd Blanche finalized a federal regulation governing the restoration of federal firearm rights. The new process allows eligible individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms to apply to have those rights restored.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety,” said Attorney General Todd Blanche. “This rule establishes a rigorous, common-sense process that protects the public while giving deserving Americans a real path to restoration.”

The signed rule has been transmitted to the Federal Register. DOJ cautions that the currently available text is unofficial until formally published.

A Restoration Process Congress Left Dormant for Decades

Section 922(g) prohibits certain categories of people (e.g., felons, domestic violence misdemeanants, unlawful drug users, fugitives, certain aliens, those under domestic violence restraining orders, etc.) from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms or ammunition in or affecting commerce.

Section 925(c), however, has long authorized the Attorney General to grant relief if the applicant shows they “will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety” and that granting relief “would not be contrary to the public interest.”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) previously administered this process by delegation. Still, Congress defunded it via appropriations riders starting in 1992, rendering the program inoperative for over 30 years.

In March 2025, DOJ issued an interim final rule withdrawing the ATF delegation. In July 2025, it published a notice of proposed rulemaking with detailed criteria. After receiving over 15,500 comments (roughly 91% supportive of restoring a workable process), the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) finalized the rule.

The program will now be operated through the Office of the Pardon Attorney rather than ATF, although the Attorney General retains the ultimate decision-making authority.

When Will Applications Open?

The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, but DOJ plans to roll out the application process in stages.

According to the Department’s current Federal Firearm Rights Restoration website:

• Thirty days after publication, DOJ will begin inviting candidates to apply.
• Seventy-five days after publication, the application will open to the public, beginning with the first 5,000 applicants.
• At 120 days, DOJ will accept another 500 applicants and begin collecting the application fee.

The Department directs prospective applicants to justice.gov/ffrr for updated eligibility information, application instructions, and the eventual online application.

Who Will Be Presumptively Disqualified?

According to the DOJ, the rule aims to protect Second Amendment rights while ensuring public safety. Relief is discretionary and guided by statutory standards.

Several offenses are presumptively permanent disqualifications. These include violent felonies (homicide, kidnapping, terrorism, stalking, and other crimes of violence), convictions involving brandishing or discharging a firearm, sex offenses requiring registration under SORNA that also trigger a § 922(g) prohibition, and felony-level domestic violence.

There will also be other time-limited presumptive disqualifications, including drug trafficking convictions or misdemeanor domestic violence: at least 10 years after completing the sentence (including probation/supervised release), and other felony convictions: at least 5 years after completing the sentence.

Other statuses that are presumptively ineligible are being a fugitive from justice (§ 922(g)(2)), unlawfully present aliens or certain nonimmigrants (§ 922(g)(5)), and persons subject to qualifying domestic violence restraining orders (§ 922(g)(8)).

The final presumptively ineligible status is being an unlawful user of or addicted to controlled substances (§ 922(g)(3)) — until the pattern of use ends. That final category seems to be at odds with the United States Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Hemani. Still, the DOJ does not believe it is at odds because the Hemani opinion was narrow.

What the Supreme Court Held in Hemani

The Supreme Court held that the federal government could not prosecute Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) based solely on evidence that he regularly used marijuana while possessing a gun in his home. The government did not allege that Hemani was addicted, intoxicated when he possessed the firearm, incapable of managing his affairs, or dangerous to himself or others. Nor did it claim that he had misused the gun.

The Court rejected the government’s attempt to treat anyone who regularly used any amount of a controlled substance as categorically dangerous. Historical laws dealing with intoxication and “habitual drunkards” targeted different conduct, operated differently, and generally required more than the mere regular use of an intoxicating substance.

The Supreme Court nevertheless described its decision as narrow. It did not decide whether the government may disarm people who are addicted or presently intoxicated. It also did not decide whether § 922(g)(3) could be applied when the government presents individualized proof that a person’s drug use makes him dangerous—or proof that a particular drug always renders its users dangerous. The Court expressly declined to pass on those questions either way.

In short, mere regular marijuana use, without more, was insufficient to support the government’s automatic and categorical ban as applied to Hemani.

DOJ Creates a Marijuana Exception

In response to Hemani and the large number of public comments addressing marijuana, DOJ amended the final rule to create an important exception.

For purposes of the rule’s drug-related presumption, DOJ’s definition of “controlled substance” does not include marijuana. As a result, unlawful use of or addiction to marijuana alone does not trigger the same presumption of ineligibility that applies to users or addicts of other controlled substances. The Department also removed proposed requirements that applicants and their character references affirm that the applicant does not use or is not addicted to marijuana.

DOJ acknowledges that excluding marijuana addicts, not merely marijuana users, goes beyond the facts presented in Hemani. The Department says distinguishing a marijuana “user” from a marijuana “addict” would require a highly fact-specific inquiry that could undermine the administrability of the restoration process.

That does not mean marijuana use automatically restores anyone’s firearm rights or removes a federal disability under 922(g)(3). The statute remains on the books, and the relief process itself remains discretionary.

Instead, an applicant whose only drug-related issue involves marijuana may apply without facing the rule’s extraordinary-circumstances presumption. DOJ may still consider the applicant’s marijuana use and other individual circumstances when deciding whether restoration would be consistent with public safety and the public interest.

For controlled substances other than marijuana, the presumption remains. Someone who continues to qualify as an unlawful user or addict will generally be denied absent extraordinary circumstances. Because that disability is status-based, an individual may ordinarily remove himself from the prohibited category by ending the unlawful conduct and breaking the pattern of ongoing use.

What Applicants Must Submit

An applicant must complete the required form and disclose all federal firearm disabilities for which relief is requested. Required materials may include:

• Electronic fingerprints or properly completed fingerprint cards.
• Certified or otherwise reliable court records.
• Charging documents, judgments, plea agreements, and presentence reports.
• Proof that every requirement of the sentence has been completed.
• State criminal-history records for each jurisdiction in which the applicant has lived or been arrested during the applicable period.
• Relevant military, mental-health, domestic violence, citizenship-renunciation, or foreign records.
• Affidavits from three qualified character references.
• Authorization for DOJ to obtain additional background information.

The final rule shifts responsibility for local law-enforcement notification to DOJ. The Department will notify the appropriate chief law-enforcement officer for the locality where the applicant resides and allow that agency to submit information supporting or opposing restoration.

The application fee is $30 once the fee stage begins, up from the proposed $20. DOJ will periodically review the fee and conduct an audit after the program has operated long enough to produce reliable cost information. Applicants may request a fee waiver or reduction, including for economic hardship.

How DOJ Will Decide Who Gets Relief

The Attorney General may consider the applicant’s entire record, including criminal history, dismissed charges associated with a plea agreement, conduct while incarcerated or under supervision, time since completion of the sentence, rehabilitation, threats, restraining orders, drug use, mental health, character references, and information supplied by local law enforcement.

Significantly, the final rule also allows the Attorney General to consider whether denying relief under an applicant’s individual circumstances would infringe the applicant’s Second Amendment rights.

If relief is granted, DOJ will publish notice of the decision and the reasons for it in the Federal Register. Any restoration applies only to the federal disability addressed in the application. It does not erase independent state or tribal firearm prohibitions, and it does not protect an individual from a new disability arising from later conduct.

An applicant denied relief may petition the United States District Court for the district in which he resides for judicial review.

---

About John Crump

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

from https://ift.tt/zXcwJ78
via IFTTT

New York Glock Ban Hit With Federal Second Amendment Lawsuit

“This case is about whether New York may ban Glock and Glock-style handguns consistent with the United States Constitution merely because someone can convert those firearms into something that they are not.” – Plaintiffs’ Complaint ¶ 34, The Firing Pin, LLC v. James

A Glock 19 Gen 6, one of the Glock models plaintiffs say falls under New York’s “convertible pistol” definition. Photo by Duncan Johnson / AmmoLand News.

New York’s long-promised Glock ban now has a federal case number. AmmoLand first covered Albany’s push to ban so-called “convertible pistols” in 2024. Since then, the idea has spread to California, Maryland, and Connecticut: blame a common semiautomatic handgun for the illegal conversion device a criminal might attach to it.

New York finally enacted its version as part of Chapter 55 of the Laws of 2026. Now The Firing Pin, two New York gun owners, the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation are asking a federal court to strike it down. The complaint in The Firing Pin, LLC v. James was filed August 13 in the Western District of New York. It names Attorney General Letitia James, New York State Police Superintendent Steven James, and three county district attorneys as defendants.

The lawsuit claims New York’s ban violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

A Glock Ban by Another Name

Beginning May 31, 2027, a New York firearms dealer or gunsmith who sells or transfers a covered “convertible pistol” can be charged with a Class D felony. That means as many as seven years in prison and a fine of at least $5,000.

The statute defines a convertible pistol as a semiautomatic handgun with a “cruciform trigger bar” that can be altered with common household tools to accept a pistol converter. The list of supposed household tools includes everything from screwdrivers and pliers to hacksaws, crowbars, electric drills, hammers, chisels, and files.

The target is not difficult to identify.

“All factory stock models of Glock pistols have a cruciform trigger bar,” the complaint states. That includes Glock’s newer Gen 6 and V-series pistols. The same basic component has been part of Glock’s design since its 1982 patent and has appeared in pistols sold in the United States since 1986.

When Glock’s Gen 3 patent expired, companies including Palmetto State Armory, Ruger, and Shadow Systems began making pistols based on the same general design. The complaint alleges that virtually all of those pistols could wind up on the State Police’s annually published list of prohibited handguns.

Yet an ordinary Glock is not a machinegun. A so-called Glock switch is a separate device that replaces the slide’s backplate and interferes with the trigger mechanism. Those devices are already illegal under federal and New York law.

“This case is about whether New York may ban Glock and Glock-style handguns,” the complaint explains, “merely because someone can convert those firearms into something that they are not.”

These Are Common Handguns

The Second Amendment claim begins with a point that should not be controversial after Heller: Handguns are “Arms.”

The Supreme Court described the handgun as the firearm Americans overwhelmingly choose for self-defense. The complaint argues that Glock and Glock-pattern pistols fall squarely within that protection, and that the right to keep and bear them necessarily includes the right to acquire them.

The numbers make New York’s position even harder to defend. Glock reportedly held nearly 65% of the American handgun market as of 2020. The complaint notes that Glock manufactured 581,944 handguns in the United States in 2021. After exports, 514,838 remained for the domestic market—and that does not include imported Glocks or pistols made by other manufacturers using similar designs.

These are not rare or exotic firearms. They are among the most common defensive handguns in America.

They are also widely used by police. The complaint points out that New York State Troopers have been issued Glock 17 pistols since 1990. New York nevertheless exempts police officers from the same sales restriction it intends to impose on ordinary citizens.

In a press release, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut pointed to Heller’s recognition of handguns as the “‘quintessential’ arm of choice for self-defense” and said New York cannot “ban all handguns outright.” SAF founder Alan Gottlieb accused lawmakers of focusing “on the handgun and not the criminals.”

New York Must Produce the History

Under Bruen and Wolford v. Lopez, the inquiry begins with the Second Amendment’s plain text. Glock pistols are bearable arms, so New York must prove that its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The complaint says no such tradition exists. Heller permits bans on weapons that are both dangerous and unusual. Glocks cannot be considered unusual when millions of Americans own them and police carry them every day.

New York may respond that current owners can keep their pistols and that a limited grandfathered secondary market will remain. But the right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them. Albany cannot avoid Heller by leaving existing guns alone while cutting off the lawful supply to future buyers.

As the complaint puts it: “That is a handgun ban.”

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional, both facially and as applied, and block its enforcement. After two years of watching anti-gun states push this same backdoor prohibition, the central question is finally in front of a federal court.

Can a state ban one of America’s most common handguns because a criminal might illegally modify it?

The Second Amendment’s text—and the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions—say no.

---

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 to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/ynYtmx9
via IFTTT

Gun-Control Groups Sound Alarm Over ATF Reforms, but the Facts Tell a Different Story

ATF’s proposed regulatory reforms have drawn warnings from Everytown, Giffords and Brady over background checks, firearm records and NFA regulations. Original firearm photo by Duncan Johnson; editorial composite created for AmmoLand News using AI-generated elements.

On April 29, the ATF announced a package of 34 proposed and final regulatory actions, including several that revisit rules imposed during the Joe Biden administration. That same day, Everytown for Gun Safety released a statement attacking the changes.

Entitled “Everytown Statement on Trump Administration’s Attempt to Sabotage ATF and Limit Enforcement of Laws that Prevent Gun Violence, Trafficking,” the statement was pretty much what one would expect: Everytown’s signature blend of hype, hysteria, and outright distortions.

If Everytown President John Feinblatt were Pinocchio, his nose would stretch from Manhattan to Proxima Centauri.

Everytown also complained about the administration’s earlier repeal of the Biden-era zero-tolerance enforcement policy for “rogue gun dealers who committed willful violations of federal law.” What Everytown didn’t mention was how that policy allowed ATF to build revocation cases around paperwork mistakes, including Form 4473 errors, such as a customer confusing “country” and “county” and entering “USA” instead of the county in which he resided.

Yup, sounds like the apocalypse to me.

On August 5, an article by ATF Director Rob Cekada appeared in The Hill. He patiently explained what the agency was proposing to change and why.

When it came to the zero-tolerance policy, Cekada called it an abusive enforcement practice. He said it actually diverted agency resources away from fighting far more serious crimes.

Cekada closed his article with:

“Streamlining the regulatory system without weakening any actual safeguard is good government, and the public is better served by an accurate account of what the ATF is doing than an alarmed one.”

Sadly, Cekada’s informative article was a classic example of casting pearls before swine.

Just two days after Cekada’s article appeared, Giffords, Brady, and Everytown unleashed a new press release, which basically doubled down on Everytown’s previous scare tactics and added new imaginary boogeymen to the brew.

“If enacted, these ATF rules will endanger communities and lead to more gun crime. Fewer background checks will occur, crime guns will be harder to trace, straw purchases will be easier to make and extremely dangerous weapons like machine guns could be brought into communities without law enforcement’s knowledge,” said Emma Brown, Giffords executive director.

That description leaves out quite a bit.

The proposed rule governing non-over-the-counter firearm transactions would not eliminate background checks. An FFL would still have to verify the buyer’s identity, conduct the required NICS check and delay shipment for at least seven days. The proposal would change how an otherwise lawful transaction may be completed; it would not authorize an FFL to ship a firearm to a prohibited person without a background check.

The records proposal is similarly less dramatic than Brady and Giffords suggest. ATF is considering requiring ordinary Forms 4473 and acquisition-and-disposition records to be retained for 20 or 30 years instead of indefinitely. A shorter 90-day period would apply to forms used for certain private-party transfers or voluntary firearm-handler background checks, while records associated with a NICS denial would be retained for five years. Calling that “letting gun sellers destroy sales records” is catchy, but it conceals what records are involved and how long they would remain available.

The proposal involving interstate transportation of NFA firearms would not legalize unregistered machine guns or allow prohibited people to possess them. It concerns the process for temporarily transporting lawfully registered NFA firearms across state lines. The guns would remain subject to the NFA, and state possession laws would still apply.

Then came Brady President Kris Brown’s warning:

“Eliminating in-person background checks. Letting gun sellers destroy sales records. Loosening restrictions on highly lethal firearms. Letting reckless gun sellers stay in the business of selling guns to the public. These proposals would strip away decades of protections that save lives and hold the gun industry accountable. And let me be clear: the consequences will be devastating. One proposed rule even explicitly warns that implementation could result in ‘mass casualty events.’ That’s not a prediction we should accept. It’s a warning we should heed. Americans deserve leaders who measure success by lives saved, not guns sold. This November, they’ll have the chance to hold their leaders accountable for that choice.”

Cekada had already addressed the “mass casualty” concern.

“Coverage has falsely claimed that ATF was arming the mentally ill, and that our own analysis shows that this rule will lead to a mass-casualty event. In truth, ATF’s cost-benefit analysis did note that the risk “may be minimal, or may be considerably greater, up to and including mass-casualty events.” Disclosing the full range of costs and benefits, including even remote scenarios, is standard regulatory practice.”

Because it is based on fact and in reality, Cekada’s take is a bit different from Ms. Brown’s.

The “mass casualty” language appears in ATF’s proposal to revise the definitions of “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution.” The agency did acknowledge an unquantified possibility that its proposed definition could exclude some people who might pose a danger. That is not, however, a prediction that the rule will cause a mass shooting or an admission that mass-casualty events will become more likely.

The proposed change would address people who have been deprived of their Second Amendment rights because they were found unable to manage government benefits or other financial affairs, even without a finding that they were dangerous or incapable of safely handling a firearm. Needing help managing a benefits check is not the same thing as being adjudicated dangerous.

A constitutional right cannot rest on an agency’s assumption that someone who needs financial assistance might also be dangerous. If the government intends to disarm a citizen on that basis, it should have to establish the relevant facts through a constitutionally adequate adjudication, not rely on a bureaucratic category broad enough to sweep in thousands of people who have never been found to threaten anyone.

Cekada’s account is certainly different from Brown’s. He describes a collection of regulatory changes, acknowledges possible costs, and explains why ATF believes the existing rules exceed what is necessary. Brown takes the most alarming phrase available, strips it of context and presents a remote possibility as a warning of impending catastrophe.

That is how the gun-control machine operates. Every reduction in federal power becomes a “loophole.” Protection for due process becomes a danger to the public. Every attempt to bring an agency’s regulations back within the statutory text becomes another predicted mass-casualty event.

The Second Amendment is not a privilege administered at ATF’s pleasure, and a change in administrations does not make the agency the final authority on the scope of the right to keep and bear arms. Regulatory reform should be measured against the Constitution and the laws Congress actually enacted, not against how loudly Everytown, Brady, and Giffords sound the alarm.

---

About Bill Cawthon

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

---

from https://ift.tt/hDJEOo9
via IFTTT

Los Angeles Made Gun Owners Wait Years for Carry Permits. DOJ’s Deal Would Add Court Enforcement

A proposed settlement would require LASD to publish specified carry-permit statistics for four years and remain subject to federal-court enforcement after judicial approval. IMG Duncan Johnson

The Justice Department and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department have filed a proposed settlement that, if approved, would place LASD’s concealed-carry permitting operation under four years of reporting requirements and federal-court enforcement.

The agreement was filed on August 13 in United States v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, one of many affirmative Second Amendment lawsuits brought by the current DOJ on behalf of gun owners. It still requires approval from U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. The agreement does not become effective until the court approves it. If approved, however, LASD’s promises will become measurable obligations enforceable by DOJ in federal court.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has agreed to end delays in issuing carry permits! @CivilRights will ensure that the terms of this agreement are followed in the years to come. We will always protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights.https://t.co/OJjrjB89TC

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) August 13, 2026

Los Angeles Buried Carry Applicants in Delay

DOJ sued LASD on September 30, 2025, alleging that the department had effectively denied thousands of citizens their right to bear arms through excessive bureaucratic delay.

According to the federal complaint, LASD received 3,982 new carry-license applications between January 2, 2024, and March 31, 2025. As of May 8, 2025, it had issued only two new licenses and denied two applications. Another 2,768 remained pending, while 1,210 had been withdrawn. Those are allegations, not judicial findings, and LASD admits no liability under the settlement. But the numbers LASD supplied to DOJ showed a licensing system that had become practically useless.

The average delay before LASD advanced a new application to its next step was 281 days. The median was 372 days, while the longest recorded delay was approximately 1,030 days. Some interviews had been scheduled for November 2026—more than two years after the applications were submitted.

Government cannot use an administrative backlog to accomplish what the Constitution forbids it from doing openly. Bruen confirmed that ordinary, law-abiding Americans possess an individual right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. A licensing scheme that leaves applicants waiting for years makes that right meaningless in practice.

Four Years of Reporting and Enforcement

LASD represents that it now complies with California’s statutory processing deadlines after adding personnel and installing new processing software.

California law requires an initial determination concerning disqualification within 90 days of a completed application. That should not be confused with the separate deadline for final approval or denial, which may depend on when LASD receives information from the California Department of Justice.

Within 90 days after judicial approval, LASD must file a declaration explaining how it achieved and will maintain compliance.

For four years, LASD must publish the minimum, maximum, and average time taken by California DOJ to return required fingerprint information. It must publish the same figures for LASD’s final written approval-or-denial notices and report the number of delay complaints received and resolved.

DOJ may verify those figures and request supporting records, which LASD must provide within 60 days.

If a dispute arises, the parties must first consult, provide written notice, and give LASD a reasonable opportunity to cure. DOJ may then ask the court to enforce the agreement. Individual applicants cannot enforce it themselves because the settlement expressly creates no third-party beneficiaries.

Delay Is a Second Amendment Injury

The most important development is DOJ’s recognition that excessive permitting delays are constitutional injuries, not merely bad customer service.

Anti-gun jurisdictions cannot evade Bruen by replacing discretionary “good cause” requirements with appointments, paperwork, and years-long queues. What government cannot prohibit directly, it cannot suppress through deliberate administrative paralysis.

If Judge Garnett approves this agreement, Los Angeles County will face four years of public reporting, DOJ verification, and a federal enforcement backstop.

This is an important victory, but gun owners should not mistake one friendly Justice Department for permanent protection. A future administration, and a very different DOJ, could abandon this enforcement effort just as quickly as the current department embraced it. That is why Congress must continue pursuing national constitutional carry or, at minimum, nationwide carry reciprocity. The right to bear arms should not depend on who occupies the White House or whether local bureaucrats feel like honoring the Constitution.

---

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 to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/d0owIVO
via IFTTT

Federal Judge Deals Final Death Blow to ATF’s ‘Engaged in the Business’ Rule

A federal judge rejected DOJ’s attempt to salvage parts of ATF’s vacated 2024 “engaged in the business” rule. iStock-1494671908

A federal district court judge dealt a death blow to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ remaining efforts to salvage parts of its controversial “engaged in the business” (EIB) rule. On August 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas denied the Department of Justice’s motion to alter or amend his earlier final judgment, holding that the entire 2024 Final Rule remains vacated.

Under former President Joe Biden, the ATF issued a Final Rule in April 2024 that dramatically expanded who needs a federal firearms license (FFL) to sell guns. The rule relied on language in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) of 2022, which amended the Gun Control Act’s definition of being “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. Congress replaced the prior “principal objective of livelihood and profit” standard with a requirement that a person devote time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms “to predominantly earn a profit” through repetitive purchase and resale.

ATF Tried to Turn Private Gun Owners Into Dealers

The ATF went much further. The agency declared that the primary purpose of a sale need not be profit for an FFL to be required. Simply advertising or offering a firearm for sale could trigger the licensing mandate. The rule created a series of presumptions under which a seller was treated as a dealer unless the individual could prove otherwise. Gun rights advocates correctly labeled the regulation a back-door attempt at universal background checks that would criminalize ordinary private sales between law-abiding citizens.

Gun Owners of America (GOA), the State of Texas, and several other states and organizations sued in Texas v. ATF. In June 2024, Judge Kacsmaryk issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the rule against the plaintiffs. After the Department of Justice later voluntarily dismissed its appeal of that injunction in April 2026, the court entered final judgment on June 12, 2026, vacating the rule in its entirety under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found that the ATF had exceeded its statutory authority and that the rule was unlawful.

Rather than accept the ruling, the ATF and DOJ filed a motion asking the judge to modify the vacatur. They argued that only certain portions of the rule should be struck down and that the agency could salvage the rest. Officials claimed a partial vacatur would ease their efforts to issue a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that purported to revise the definition. In short, the government wanted the court to perform surgical edits so that pieces of the Biden-era rule could remain on the books.

Judge Calls DOJ’s Argument “Too Clever by Half”

Judge Kacsmaryk rejected the request in clear terms. He described the government’s position as “too clever by half.” Vacatur, he noted, is the default remedy under the APA when an agency action is held unlawful. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s severability analysis, the court found that the remainder of the rule could not function sensibly without the provisions already declared invalid. The rule’s single animating purpose had been to expand background checks through a vastly broadened definition of commercial dealing. Without those core elements, the rest collapsed.

The judge further observed that the ATF’s newer proposed rulemaking “doubles down on the substance of the old Rule,” including language that would allow regulation of gun owners even when they never sold a single firearm. That approach directly contradicted the court’s earlier holdings that actual sales and genuine commercial intent are required.

“Defendants cannot avoid the force of those Orders by rearranging a few words between the old Rule and the new one,” Kacsmaryk wrote.

The Engaged in the Business Final Rule therefore remains vacated in its entirety.

What the Ruling Means for Gun Owners

The decision protects private citizens who occasionally sell firearms from their personal collections, liquidate inherited guns, or make occasional transfers without fear of being treated as unlicensed dealers. It restores the statutory limits Congress actually enacted and reinforces that the ATF may not rewrite federal criminal law through creative regulation.

For gun owners across the country, the August 13 order closes a chapter of bureaucratic overreach that began under the previous administration and confirms that courts remain willing to hold the agency to the text of the statute.

---

About John Crump

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

from https://ift.tt/5dyazxE
via IFTTT

Chicago Required Gun Training, Then Banned Every Place to Train

Chicago required residents to complete live-fire training before legally possessing a firearm while simultaneously banning public shooting ranges within city limits. iStock-2217328010

More than a decade before the Supreme Court struck down Hawaii’s attempt to make lawful carry practically impossible in Wolford v. Lopez, Chicago tried the same basic trick with firearm ownership.

The city required residents to complete live-fire training before they could obtain the permit necessary to possess a firearm. Chicago then banned every public firing range within city limits.

You had to train before you could lawfully own a gun, but the city prohibited you from training. That was not public-safety regulation. It was a handgun ban rebuilt with paperwork.

The Seventh Circuit saw through it in Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011).

Chicago’s Post-McDonald End Run

For nearly three decades, Chicago effectively prohibited ordinary citizens from possessing handguns. The Supreme Court put an end to that in McDonald v. City of Chicago, holding that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chicago’s political class did not accept that decision gracefully.

Just four days after McDonald, the City Council adopted its so-called Responsible Gun Owners Ordinance. The sprawling law imposed permits, registration, fees and severe restrictions on where firearms could be possessed.

To obtain a Chicago Firearm Permit, an applicant had to complete a certified safety course that included one hour of range training. At the same time, the ordinance prohibited all shooting galleries and firing ranges in the city. Government and certain private-security ranges remained available, but ordinary Chicago residents could not use them.

Rhonda Ezell and two other Chicago residents challenged the scheme alongside Action Target, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association. After the district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs appealed.

The Seventh Circuit reversed.

The Right to Keep Arms Includes Learning to Use Them

Judge Diane Sykes explained that the right to possess a firearm for self-defense necessarily carries with it the right to acquire and maintain proficiency.

“The core right wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that make it effective,” the court observed.

That conclusion was not manufactured from a judge’s personal views about guns. The court looked to the original meaning of the Second Amendment and the historical record surrounding both 1791 and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.

The opinion cited Thomas Cooley’s influential 1868 constitutional treatise, which explained that bearing arms implied more than merely keeping them. It included learning to handle and use them and meeting for voluntary discipline in arms.

Chicago pointed to historical laws restricting the discharge of firearms in populated areas. But those laws did not establish a tradition of prohibiting controlled target practice. Many contained exceptions for shooting at designated targets or allowed firearm practice with permission from local authorities. Those were regulations of unsafe discharge, not blanket bans on training.

The city could identify only a couple of broad historical prohibitions unrelated to fire prevention. A few isolated laws could not overcome the larger historical record, particularly when other cities expressly accommodated target shooting.

Speculation Is Not Evidence

Chicago claimed firing ranges might produce accidents, attract thieves or expose shooters to lead. The city, however, presented no meaningful data or expert evidence showing that a complete ban was necessary.

The Seventh Circuit noted that ordinary zoning, construction and safety regulations could address legitimate concerns. Properly designed indoor ranges were already operating safely near homes, schools, churches and stores—including ranges used by Chicago law enforcement.

The city’s lead-contamination argument became so strained that the litigation wandered into a discussion about whether portable toilets supplied enough water for shooters to wash their hands. The majority wrote that raising the issue as justification for banning every range “suggests pretext.”

Judge Ilana Rovner concurred in the judgment, calling Chicago’s ordinance “too clever by half” and “a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.”

The Seventh Circuit ordered the district court to enjoin the range ban and related provisions that prevented residents from possessing or transporting firearms for training. Chicago remained free to impose historically supportable safety rules. It could not use those rules to exclude ranges from the entire city.

When Chicago responded with restrictive zoning, distancing and age requirements, the Seventh Circuit struck those down in 2017 as well. The combined zoning rules left only 2.2% of the city theoretically available for ranges, and not one public range had opened. The court again rejected Chicago’s speculative safety arguments.

Ezell in 2026

Part of Ezell’s legal framework has since been overtaken by N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Ezell majority applied a demanding form of heightened scrutiny after completing its historical analysis. Bruen rejected that second stage of judicial interest balancing.

Today, once the Second Amendment’s text covers a person’s conduct, the government must prove that its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That makes Ezell’s historical analysis more important.

The modern parallel is unmistakable. After losing in Bruen, Hawaii enacted a default rule prohibiting carry on private property open to the public without express permission. In June 2026, the Supreme Court struck that rule in Wolford v. Lopez, recognizing that it hobbled the right to carry during ordinary daily life.

Chicago did the same thing after McDonald: replace the ban the Court rejected with a regulatory scheme engineered to reach the same result.

The lesson from Ezell remains simple. Government cannot demand that citizens satisfy a condition, outlaw every practical means of satisfying it and then pretend the right still exists.

The Second Amendment is not a zoning suggestion or a privilege available only when city officials leave an approved location open. It protects the right to keep and bear arms—and a right that cannot be learned, practiced or meaningfully exercised is no right at all.

---

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 to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/LCY3jSJ
via IFTTT

NFA Injunction Takes Effect, Now ATF Owes Gun Owners Answers

Plaintiffs are demanding guidance from ATF and DOJ after the seven-day stay of a permanent NFA injunction expired. IMG Tim Potter

The federal government’s seven-day reprieve in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF has expired. The permanent injunction against enforcement of major portions of the National Firearms Act is now in effect for the covered plaintiffs, members, and customers.

Now the plaintiffs want the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Department of Justice to explain how they intend to obey the court’s order.

In an August 13 letter, attorney Peter Patterson of Cooper & Kirk asked DOJ for guidance on what the injunction means for gun owners, manufacturers, dealers, organizational members, and customers covered by the judgment. The plaintiffs requested a response by August 21.

The NFA’s Taxing-Power Foundation Collapsed

The letter follows U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix’s August 5 ruling that the challenged NFA registration and approval provisions exceed Congress’s enumerated powers when applied to firearms whose making and transfer taxes Congress reduced to zero.

Congress originally enacted the NFA as a tax measure. For nearly a century, Washington used that taxing power to impose registration, fingerprints, advance approval, and criminal penalties on Americans possessing suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns. But a tax that collects no revenue is not much of a tax.

Once Congress zeroed out the making and transfer taxes on those firearms, the claimed constitutional foundation for the accompanying regulatory system collapsed. DOJ attempted to salvage the scheme by pointing to the Commerce Clause and the remaining occupational tax on NFA manufacturers and dealers. Judge Hendrix rejected those arguments.

Congress cannot pass a law under one enumerated power, eliminate the basis for that power, and then ask a court to rewrite history by assigning the law a different constitutional foundation. If Congress wants to enact a new law under its commerce authority, it must do so itself and remain within the Constitution’s limits.

The court permanently enjoined ATF and DOJ from enforcing the challenged NFA provisions against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their members and customers, both current and future. The ruling reaches covered people nationwide, but it is not a universal injunction protecting everyone.

Five Questions ATF Must Answer

That distinction is precisely why ATF guidance is needed. The plaintiffs asked whether ATF will issue instructions to regulated businesses and individuals, when those instructions will arrive, and whether the government intends to keep enforcing the same provisions against people who fall outside the injunction.

They also asked how ATF will distinguish between covered and uncovered individuals across the country. Dealers cannot be expected to guess which memberships, customer relationships, transactions, or records satisfy the court’s order while federal felony penalties remain in the background.

The most consequential question concerns what happens if DOJ later obtains a stay or reversal. The plaintiffs want to know how the government would treat NFA firearms legally made or transferred while the injunction was operating.

Would those firearms be grandfathered? Would ATF demand retroactive registration? Would owners receive a compliance period? Or would the government attempt to turn today’s lawful conduct into tomorrow’s criminal liability?

Gun owners deserve answers before acting, not after federal agents arrive.

The ruling does not mean the entire NFA has vanished. It does not automatically nullify state restrictions, the NFA occupational-tax system, or separate federal provisions governing certain dealer transfers and interstate transportation. The judgment also treats “any other weapons” differently between the two consolidated plaintiff groups because the Jensen plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the AOW provisions.

Those limitations do not diminish the magnitude of the victory. A federal court has held that Washington cannot maintain a registration and criminal-enforcement system untethered from any enumerated constitutional power.

The government had seven days to seek immediate appellate relief. It did not. The injunction is now effective, and DOJ still has time to appeal, but ATF cannot leave covered gun owners and businesses navigating a criminal statute through rumors, social-media posts, and bureaucratic silence.

The court has ruled. The stay has expired. It is time for ATF to explain how it plans to comply.

---

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 to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

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