Hemani at SCOTUS: Will Marijuana Users Stay Banned From Gun Ownership?

The Supreme Court’s review of United States v. Hemani could become one of the most important gun-rights cases in years, especially for gun owners caught in the legal gray zone created by state marijuana laws and federal firearms prohibitions. iStock-2165461881

Early last month, the Supreme Court heard United States v. Hemani, a challenge to 18 U.S. Code §922(g)(3). This is the prohibition on firearm possession by anyone “(W)ho is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 contained the first bans, which applied to those convicted of “crimes of violence.”

“The term ‘crime of violence’ means murder, manslaughter, rape, mayhem, kidnapping, burglary, housebreaking; assault with intent to kill, commit rape, or rob; assault with a dangerous weapon, or assault with intent to commit any offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.”

On April 27, 1961, Senate Bill 1750, “An Act to strengthen the Federal Firearms Act” was introduced.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1 of the Federal Firearms Act, as amended (52 Stat. 1250; 15 U.S.C. 901-909), is further amended by repealing paragraph (6), by deleting the words “crime of violence” in paragraph (7) and inserting in lieu thereof the words “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”, and by renumbering paragraphs (7) and (8) as paragraphs (6) and ( 7 ).

“SEC. 2. Section 2 of such Act is amended by deleting the words “crime of violence” in subsections ( d ), (e), and (f) and inserting in lieu thereof the words “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”.

The bill passed the Senate on June 13, 1961; the House approved it on September 19; and became Public Law 87-342 on October 3, 1961.

For the first time, it didn’t matter whether an offense was described as violent or nonviolent, a felony or a misdemeanor. Even if the sentence was suspended or the judgment included no jail time, a lifetime ban was imposed.

In 1968, possession of marijuana was a felony virtually anywhere in the United States. The rise of the counterculture and the increasingly widespread use of marijuana, psychedelics like LSD, opiates, and other substances was a hot-button issue. It was no surprise to see a new class of prohibited persons added to the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Ironically, just about seven months after the GCA ’68 became effective, the Supreme Court declared the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 unconstitutional. The case was Leary v. United States.

The Marijuana Tax Act was the federal government’s first law that specifically regulated marijuana. It was a revenue measure based on the National Firearms Act of 1934. The actual crimes were possession of untaxed weed and failing to have the required federal license.

After the Supreme Court’s decision, Congress repealed the law. It was replaced by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

Today, virtually all states allow for at least medicinal use of marijuana. Twenty-four states have legalized adult recreational use; the rest have reduced simple possession of small amounts to a misdemeanor.

This includes the federal government: Possession of a small amount of marijuana is now a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of a year in jail. It no longer meets the standards set by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 or the 1961 expansion. It also fails to meet the Fifth Amendment’s threshold for depriving a citizen of their civil liberties, including the right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence doesn’t support the status quo. The “history and tradition” test required under Bruen reveals there were no truly analogous laws during either the Founding or Reconstruction Eras.

Right now, the best outcome would be a favorable ruling in Hemani. Otherwise, we have to rely on an extremely reluctant Congress that must have watched Reefer Madness one too many times.

Even though the Drug Enforcement Agency is part of the Executive Branch, there’s not a lot the President can do: The DEA administrator, currently Terrence Cole, has the final word on which drugs go where.

President Trump issued Executive Order 14370 last December. However, it was more focused on research on the medical uses of marijuana and cannabidiols. The goal was to persuade the DEA to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. After four months, there have been no updates.

Hemani has forced the Supreme Court to confront a question Congress has avoided for decades: whether the government can keep treating marijuana users as a class of prohibited persons when the country itself no longer treats simple marijuana possession as the kind of grave offense that justifies stripping away a constitutional right.

Under Bruen, the government is supposed to point to a real historical tradition of comparable disarmament, not just modern policy preferences dressed up as public safety. If the Court rules the right way, it could finally put real limits on one of the most outdated and incoherent bans in federal gun law. If it does not, gun owners will be left waiting on a Congress and bureaucracy that have shown little urgency in fixing a problem they helped create.

Supreme Court Signals Trouble for Federal Law Disarming Regular Marijuana Users

---

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/0goWYjA
via IFTTT

Democrat Gun Control Backfires as Virginia Gun Sales Surge, New Jersey Carry Permits Spike

The Second Amendment is in the spotlight in New Jersey and Virginia, where public actions show Democrat politicians are out of step. iStock-2217328079

Two very revealing articles in two different East Coast states are showing plenty of evidence that Democrat gun policies are dramatically out of step with the public, as people in both jurisdictions are briskly exercising their gun rights.

In Virginia, where freshman Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s popularity is tanking after only a few months in office as she has just presided over a legislative session that saw lots of gun control measures passed, WJLA News says a new poll shows her losing ground by “double digits.”

Across the Old Dominion, according to the Cardinal News, “Early indicators suggest Virginians responded to a slate of proposed gun control legislation with a noticeable increase in firearm background checks… There were 79,846 firearm background checks initiated in Virginia in March, according to data from the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. The figure marks one of the highest monthly totals since the surges in March and June 2020.”

In addition to the COVID-19 pandemic, the story added, this was the first year since 2020 when a  Democratic trifecta advanced gun control legislation.

Go north to New Jersey, where restrictive gun control laws were “dismantled”—at least temporarily—by the 2022 Supreme Court Bruen decision, and the Asbury Park Press is reporting the number of concealed carry permit approvals has “increased nearly tenfold” over the past four years.

New Jersey is also a Democrat stronghold, but in 2025, according to the Asbury Park Press report, “the state issued more permits than the years 2019 to 2023 combined.”

If these reports, which do not seem coincidental, don’t tell anti-gun Democrats their policies toward the Second Amendment are out of touch, perhaps nothing will.

The Cardinal News ran down a list of gun control measures passed earlier this year by Democrats in Richmond. The report included a quote from firearms retailer Ben Goldberg in Henrico County which says more than any public opinion poll.

“Every time the Democratic Party does any sort of gun legislation, gun sales go through the roof,” Goldberg reportedly said. “We’re talking at least quadruple the volume that I was doing before that.”

While liberal lawmakers may not see it—or at least pretend it’s not happening—citizens in both states are clearly signaling they want to exercise their Second Amendment rights, regardless what politicians say.

New Jersey’s state constitution does not have a specific right-to-bear-arms provision.

Virginia’s state constitution (Article 1, Section 13) says, “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

Both states must comply with the Second Amendment, however, since it was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment in 2010 as part of the Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and Illinois State Rifle Association.

According to the Asbury Park Press report, during the 2 ½ years from July 2022 through December 2025, Garden State law enforcement agencies issued “more than 88,000 new permits to carry handguns.” The data source was the state Attorney General’s office.

It seems clear that people in a state where gun rights were extremely restricted prior to the Bruen ruling are eager to exercise their restored right to bear arms.

Meanwhile, in Virginia—where gun ownership has deeper roots—citizens are scrambling to obtain firearms before Democrat lawmakers and governor can legislatively choke their rights. As noted by WVEC News, Spanberger is up against a deadline where the gun control bills are concerned. The station says 10 gun bills are on her desk, including a measure banning so-called “assault weapons.” It seems almost certain there will be legal challenges, despite a provision which will allow people who already own such firearms prior to the bill’s enactment will be allowed to keep them.

Gun owners in Rhode Island headed to the capitol Wednesday, where the legislature is also considering more gun control laws.

In Massachusetts, Spectrum News is reporting that new requirements for gun permit applications are now in place. The new requirements include a written examination and live fire exercise, and applicants must learn about safe storage and “disengagement tactics.”

On the plus side, various reports are saying that Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and is very pro-Second Amendment, is in line to be promoted to the position of associate attorney general. Bloomberg News is reporting that moving Dhillon into a higher position would expand “her authority over election integrity, which falls under the associate AG’s purview, as the midterms approach.”

In the gun rights community, such a promotion might also mean more activity by the Justice Department to challenge restrictive state gun control laws which clash with the Second Amendment.

March NICS Show Steady Gun Demand, While NFA Checks Explode More Than 121%

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

---

from https://ift.tt/mtDhO95
via IFTTT

Judge Roger Benitez Retires, Leaving Behind a Major Second Amendment Legacy

Judge-Court-Law-Gun-Rights-iStock-2180021491

Judge Roger T. Benitez, also known as “Saint” Benitez by supporters of the Second Amendment, has retired from federal service as of April 2, 2026. Judge Benitez was born in December 1950 in Havana, Cuba. He fled the Castro regime in Cuba in 1960 with his brother, speaking only Spanish at the time. His family was reunited and eventually settled in the Imperial Valley of California.

Judge Benitez graduated from the Central Union High School in El Centro, California, then obtained an Associate’s degree from Imperial Valley Community College in 1971, a Bachelor of Arts degree from San Diego State University in 1974, and a J.D. degree from Western State University College of Law’s San Diego campus in 1978. He spent 19 years in private practice in the Imperial Valley. He became a California Superior Court Judge from 1997 to 2001. Judge Benitez was appointed as a federal Magistrate judge in 2001. He was elevated to Federal District Judge in 2004 despite opposition from the American Bar Association. Judge Benitez assumed senior status on December 31, 2017

Judge Benitez first became known as “Saint” Benitez after his decision in Duncan v. Becerra, later renamed Duncan v. Bonta.

Judge Benitez was assigned the case before he assumed senior status. The case took nearly two years to adjudicate. In this case, Judge Benitez granted a motion for summary judgment against the State of California. The summary judgment was in effect from March 29 to April 5, 2019. It became known as “Freedom Week”. Estimates suggest hundreds of thousands of magazines were legally purchased and shipped into California during that week.

Seven years later, the case is still under review. It has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The three-judge panel affirmed Judge Benitez’s decision on August 14, 2020. Then the Ninth Circuit decided to hear the case en banc. The en banc panel reversed the decision of the three-judge panel on June 22, 2021. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit en banc decision and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the District Court and Judge Benitez.

Judge Benitez issued the decision on September 22, 2023. Judge Benitez again found the law to be unconstitutional in a well-written and argued decision. The state appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit the same day.

The Ninth Circuit, in an unprecedented move, voted to bypass a three-judge panel and rehear the case en banc. The en banc panel issued its opinion in March 2025, again reversing Judge Benitez’s decision, with strong dissents. The case became Duncan v. Bonta due to a change in the California Attorney General. The case is again being appealed to the Supreme Court. As of the time of Judge Benitez’s retirement on April 2, 2026, the Supreme Court had not yet decided whether to hear the case for a second time.

Now I’m going to be even more angry if SCOTUS fails us in Duncan.

Judge Benitez deserves vindication! https://t.co/Lgb80l7Wkl pic.twitter.com/mRtUbk65Ay

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) April 7, 2026

In addition to Duncan v. Bonta, Judge Benitez issued a decision that the California ban on the AR-15 and similar firearms violated the Second Amendment in 2021. The Ninth Circuit put that decision on hold pending the final decision in Duncan v. Bonta.

Judge Benitez decided a law requiring background checks to purchase ammunition was unconstitutional in 2024. In 2025, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Benitez’s decision on the ammunition law.  The panel’s decision was appealed to the en banc Ninth Circuit, which is now considering it.

In a case about the Second Amendment on short clubs “billies”, Judge Benitez originally found for the State of California. The Supreme Court sent the case back to Judge Benitez after its Bruen ruling. Judge Benitez, following the Bruen decision, found the California law to be unconstitutional. California has appealed the case, which is now pending, awaiting the final decision in Duncan v. Bonta.

Judge “Saint” Benitez has now retired from the court. He is 75 years old. He leaves a rich legacy of cases and decisions that are superbly argued and written.

Coming from a family that suffered significant persecution by the unlimited government in Cuba, he held limitations on government power in the United States to be clear and legitimate.  His story is one of the American dream, from fleeing communism to his ascent to high office, against the odds. His presence on the court will be missed.

SCOTUS Lets Illinois Public Transit Carry Ban Stand, Leaving a Dangerous “Sensitive Places” Theory in Place

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

---

from https://ift.tt/vi7nbdL
via IFTTT

ATF to Keep Biden-Era Frames and Receivers Rule in Place

The ATF has decided to keep the Biden administration’s 2022 frames and receivers rule in place, preserving federal restrictions on certain unfinished frames, receivers, and parts kits. Image Duncan Johnson

In a development that is sure to send ripples through the firearms industry, Second Amendment advocacy groups, and law enforcement circles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has signaled it will keep the Biden administration’s 2022 “frames and receivers” rule intact. The agency had previously requested stays in two key federal lawsuits, VanDerStok v. Bondi and Defense Distributed v. Bondi, to draft a replacement regulation.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs have now been informed that no new rule will be forthcoming.

The decision marks a significant pivot for the Trump administration’s Department of Justice, which was formerly under Attorney General Pam Bondi and is now under Todd Blanche. Nearly a year after President Trump directed a comprehensive review of Biden-era ATF regulations on February 7, 2025, the agency appears to have concluded that revising the rule, already upheld in key respects by the U.S. Supreme Court, would be impractical or unnecessary.

The move leaves in place one of the most contentious gun-control measures of the past decade, which regulates so-called “ghost guns” by treating certain unfinished firearm components and parts kits as regulated firearms.

The rule, formally known as ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F and titled “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms,” was finalized on April 26, 2022. It dramatically expanded the regulatory reach of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). Under the original 1968 law, a “firearm” includes “any weapon…which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” or “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” Traditionally, the ATF interpreted “frame or receiver” to mean a completed, functional part capable of housing the firing mechanism.

The 2022 rule changed that. It redefined “frame or receiver” to encompass “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional” frames and receivers that can be readily completed with common tools. It also classified certain “weapon parts kits” bundles of components that include an unfinished frame or receiver, along with other parts, as firearms themselves if they are “designed to or may readily be converted” into a working gun.

Sellers of these kits must now obtain federal firearms licenses (FFLs), serialize the items, conduct background checks on buyers, and maintain record-keeping requirements previously avoided by many manufacturers of 80% lowers, polymer kits, and build-your-own kits popular with hobbyists.

The ATF justified the change by pointing to an alleged surge in untraceable “ghost guns.” Law enforcement reports showed ghost gun recoveries in crimes skyrocketing from roughly 1,600 in 2017 to over 19,000 in 2021. Although this stat includes guns with obliterated serial numbers, homemade or kit-built firearms lack them; the ATF claims this makes them difficult to trace in investigations. Proponents, including anti-gun organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety, hailed the rule as a common-sense update to close a loophole exploited by criminals and prohibited persons.

Critics, however, argued it overreached. Groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and manufacturers such as Polymer80 and Defense Distributed contended that the ATF was rewriting congressional intent. They pointed out that millions of Americans have legally built firearms at home since the founding era, a practice protected by the Second Amendment and never subjected to such broad serialization mandates for unfinished parts. The rule, they said, turned law-abiding hobbyists into potential felons overnight and burdened small businesses.

The rule faced immediate legal challenges. In VanDerStok v. Garland (later VanDerStok v. Bondi), plaintiffs, including Jennifer VanDerStok, Michael Andren, Tactical Machining, and others, filed suit in the Northern District of Texas. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor vacated the rule nationwide in 2022, ruling it exceeded the ATF’s authority under the GCA. The Fifth Circuit largely affirmed, holding that the statute’s plain text covered only complete weapons and finished frames or receivers, not kits or partially machined parts.

The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court. In a landmark 7-2 decision on March 26, 2025, the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit in Bondi v. VanDerStok.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, held that the rule was not facially inconsistent with the GCA. The Court reasoned that terms like “weapon,” “frame,” and “receiver” are “artifact nouns” that can encompass unfinished items when their intended purpose is clear. For example, a Polymer80 “Buy Build Shoot” kit, assemblable in about 20 minutes with basic tools, qualifies as a “weapon…which…may readily be converted.” Similarly, some partially complete frames fall within the statutory definition. However, the ruling was narrow: it applied only to a facial challenge and left open as-applied challenges for more incomplete kits. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. A parallel challenge by Defense Distributed, the company founded by Cody Wilson, known for 3D-printed firearms and the “G80” kit, remained active. Plaintiffs there shifted their focus to constitutional claims under the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause, arguing that the rule burdens the right to possess arms for personal use, a tradition dating back centuries.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling and Trump’s February 2025 executive order directing review of Biden-era ATF rules for Second Amendment consistency, the DOJ under Bondi sought time to reassess.

In early April 2026, in VanDerStok v. Bondi, the government requested a 90-day stay of proceedings, citing plans to promulgate a revised frames-and-receivers rule. A joint status report in the case explicitly referenced the upcoming new regulation, which the DOJ said might resolve or moot some of the plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Similar requests were made in the Defense Distributed litigation.

Gun rights advocates expressed cautious optimism. Many expected the new rule to narrow the definition, exempt more unfinished parts, or provide clearer guidance, potentially aligning with Trump’s pro-Second Amendment stance. Industry groups like 80 Percent Arms had already updated their websites to reflect the ongoing uncertainty.

Then came the breaking news. Lawyers for the plaintiffs were informed this week that the ATF has decided not to issue a new rule. The Biden-era regulation will remain in effect. The about-face stunned observers.

BREAKING

Trump’s Department of Justice has decided to ADOPT Biden’s anti-gun rule that heavily restricts homemade firearms.

This is in stark contrast to the White House, which just called this Biden rule an “attack” on gun owners that “undermine[s] the Second Amendment.” pic.twitter.com/7ev3B8sQof

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) April 9, 2026

No official explanation has been released, but AmmoLand sources close to the litigation suggest internal reviews concluded that rewriting the rule would invite further legal and political complications, especially after the Supreme Court’s endorsement of its core framework. The agency may also prioritize other enforcement priorities amid its broader “new era of reform,” which has already included ending zero-tolerance policies for FFLs.

Anti-gun advocates welcomed the decision. Everytown and similar groups praised it as preserving a vital tool against untraceable firearms, noting that ghost guns continue to appear in mass shootings and street crime. They urged the ATF to enforce the rule vigorously.

On the other side, Second Amendment organizations reacted with frustration. The FPC and SAF, lead plaintiffs in the cases, called the retention “a betrayal of the review process” and vowed to press forward with constitutional challenges.

“The fight is far from over,” a Defense Distributed spokesperson said. “We will seek preliminary injunctions and argue that the rule violates the historical tradition of private arms-making.”

Manufacturers worry about compliance costs: serialization of 80% lowers could drive up prices and force many small businesses out of the market. Hobbyists fear that even basic jigs and unfinished parts could trigger federal scrutiny.

Law enforcement perspectives are mixed. While anti-gun groups argue the rule aids tracing in some investigations, critics within police ranks note that most ghost guns are still assembled by law-abiding citizens, not criminals. The rule’s vagueness, relying on subjective “readily convertible” tests, has already led to inconsistent enforcement.

The ATF’s decision does not end the litigation. The district court in Texas must now address the remanded claims, including whether the rule is lawful as applied to specific products and whether it survives Second Amendment scrutiny under the Bruen framework. Congress could also intervene, though prospects for legislation remain dim in a divided landscape.

For now, the 2022 rule stands as the law of the land. Americans selling certain unfinished frames, receivers, or parts kits must treat them as firearms or risk felony charges.

First Circuit Says Second Amendment Does Not Protect Buying Guns in Beckwith v. Frey

---

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 @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

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

Daniel Defense Complete Lower Receiver Group – $499.99

Limited Time Deal

If you’ve been waiting for a good time to upgrade the foundation of your AR build with a proven Daniel Defense lower, this PSA Daily Deal is worth a hard look. Palmetto State Armory currently has the Daniel Defense Complete Lower Receiver Group marked down from $599.99 to $499.99, a savings of about 17%.

Top Features

• Complete Daniel Defense lower receiver group
• 7075-T6 aluminum lower with Type III hard coat anodizing
• Enhanced flared magwell for faster reloads
• Ambi safety and H buffer included
• 6-position mil-spec receiver extension
• Made in the USA

Why Shooters Love It

Daniel Defense has a strong reputation for turning out hard-use AR components, and this complete lower gives you a ready-to-go base built around mil-spec materials and practical upgrades. PSA’s listing highlights the enhanced flared magwell, rear QD swivel attachment point, ambi safety, H buffer, and Daniel Defense furniture with soft-touch overmolding, making this a strong option for shooters who want premium quality without piecing everything together separately.

Unbeatable Price

• MSRP / Regular Price: $599.99
• Deal Price: $499.99
  • You Save: $100.00

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Daniel H9 9mm Luger Semi-Auto Handgun - Daniel H9 9mm Luger 4.28'''' Bbl (1)15rd Mag Black	Brownells.com	$ 880.00
	Daniel Defense Mk18 RIS II 9.55" Handguard - Black	GunMag Warehouse	$ 516.99
	Daniel Defense DANIEL H9 9mm 4.28" 15rd Pistol, Black - 50-179-10084-006	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1299.99 $ 799.99
	Daniel Defense DANIEL H9 9mm 15 Round Magazine	The Mag Shack	$ 24.99

Before you buy read AmmoLand News’s complete Daily Deal Disclaimer here.

from https://ift.tt/Ax4L2Tv
via IFTTT

March NICS Show Steady Gun Demand, While NFA Checks Explode More Than 121%

The March 2026 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure rose 1.9% year over year, while NFA checks jumped 121.2%. Image Travis Pike

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System numbers for March 2026 are in, and they show the same pattern gun owners and industry watchers have seen before: the raw FBI total and the NSSF-adjusted figure are telling two different stories.

According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the March 2026 adjusted NICS figure came in at 1,412,917, up 1.9 percent from March 2025. At the same time, the unadjusted FBI total fell to 2,212,094, down 10.5 percent from 2,470,705 a year earlier.

NICS is being used for more and more background checks, which are not directly related to firearm sales. Chief among these are background checks for firearm carry permits and other firearm permits.

As more states have become Constitutional Carry or permitless carry states, and as some states have stopped monthly background checks, the correlation between total NICS background checks and adjusted background checks approximating NICS firearm sales has varied significantly.

Looking at the NICS-adjusted data over the last twelve months from the NSSF, the first quarter (three months) of 2026 is slightly greater than the first quarter of 2025. The difference in the two years is not great, but adjusted sales in the last quarter of 2025 were definitely lower than in the last quarter of 2026.

One of the biggest takeaways from the March release is what is happening in the NFA market. New for 2026, NSSF is now breaking out monthly NFA checks for Form 1 and Form 4 activity. In March, that figure hit 206,871, up 121.2 percent from 93,518 in March 2025. That is a massive year-over-year jump and one more sign that suppressors and other NFA-regulated items are helping drive consumer activity in ways that stand out even within a generally stable gun market.

The state-level breakdown is also worth noting. NSSF said the top five states for adjusted NICS checks in March were Texas, Florida, California, Pennsylvania, and Colorado. For NFA checks specifically, the top five were Texas, Florida, Virginia, North Carolina, and Georgia. Texas remained the clear leader in both categories, with Florida also posting strong numbers across the board.

One reason for the slight increase in sales is the conflict in the Middle East with Iran, where President Trump is fulfilling promises made over at least 15 years. Firearm sales are often driven by uncertainty. This hotter phase of the war with Iran, which has been ongoing for 47 years, has the additional effect of offering President Trump’s opponents opportunities to attack him, as the final outcome has yet to be determined. Uncertainty abroad and domestically exists.

The outcome of the massive destruction the United States and Israeli forces are inflicting on the Iranian theocracy will likely produce a resolution by the end of April 2026, as predicted by the Trump administration. Firearm sales will continue to rise in April.

After April, two things are likely.

1. The world will be more stable due to a tamed Iran, which will no longer be sponsoring terrorism.
2. The domestic situation will be more stable with falling energy prices and a victorious Trump administration.

If those predictions come true, firearms sales would level off or decline in May and June, months when sales normally drop.

ATF Set to Introduce New Frames and Receivers Rule

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

---

from https://ift.tt/vhY6bLt
via IFTTT

Brown v. ATF: Gun Rights Groups Challenge NFA Registration After Tax Repeal

Plaintiffs in Brown v. ATF argue the National Firearms Act’s registration scheme cannot survive after Congress reduced the tax on key NFA items to zero. Image Jens Hammer

The Second Amendment Foundation, American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, and Firearms Policy Coalition filed a supplemental brief in Brown v. ATF challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act’s remaining registration requirements now that President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the $200 tax on silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons,” according to a press release from the organization.

Prior to the legislation’s enactment, acquiring these items under the NFA required both paying the tax and registering the firearms with the federal government. Congress grounded this regime in its constitutional taxing authority. The gun rights organizations contend that by zeroing out the tax, the One Big Beautiful Bill stripped Congress of its constitutional basis for keeping the registration requirement in place.

“In response to our Motion for Summary Judgment, the court requested additional briefing, which highlight multiple critical elements of our claim,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We are thrilled to have an additional opportunity to explain exactly why our claim is so strong. The brief highlights why SAF and our members have standing to bring this suit, and precisely how the merits analysis supports our position. As we always do, we make our positions as plainly and forthrightly as possible, and we post links to the entire docket for each case on our website so everyone can read the full arguments we are making on their behalf.”

Brown v. ATF is being litigated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri under case number 4:25-cv-01162-SRC. Plaintiffs include the Second Amendment Foundation, American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two private citizens, Chris Brown and Allen Mayville. Named defendants are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Acting ATF Director Daniel P. Driscoll, the United States Department of Justice, and Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi.

The supplemental brief, filed March 31, 2026, argues that suppressors fall within the Second Amendment’s plain text as integral components of firearms that facilitate their use and functionality. Plaintiffs contend that suppressors qualify as “arms” under the Second Amendment, drawing on historical precedent and practical applications including their capacity to reduce noise, muzzle flash, and hearing damage in self-defense situations.

The brief further challenges the NFA’s characterization as a tax-and-registration regime rather than a licensing system, arguing that registration requirements are constitutionally suspect. Plaintiffs maintain that the NFA’s operation amounts to a registry of constitutionally protected arms, which conflicts with the Second Amendment’s text and historical tradition.

The plaintiffs seek to possess, acquire, or manufacture NFA-regulated firearms without registration, asserting that the NFA’s provisions inflict concrete, particularized injuries and create a credible threat of prosecution, as the defendants have not disclaimed intent to enforce the law against them.

“For almost a century, the NFA has been used to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of citizens,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We now have a chance to remove these unconstitutional restrictions and look forward to fully restoring the right to keep and bear arms for the countless Americans who own silencers and short-barreled rifles across the nation.”

The NFA should be abolished entirely. Its passage in the 1930s represented an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms and established the legal framework for every subsequent gun control measure that followed. Americans should not need government permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right, and courts should recognize the NFA for what it always was and strike it down completely.

SCOTUS Lets Illinois Public Transit Carry Ban Stand, Leaving a Dangerous “Sensitive Places” Theory in Place

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/N3eXoLf
via IFTTT