The ATF is preparing a new rule on frames and receivers as litigation continues in VanDerStok v. Bondi. Img Duncan Johnson
In a filing in VanDerStok et al, v. Bondi et al. (formerly VanDerStok v. Garland), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has asked the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, to stay the case for 90 days due to an upcoming rule change.
The ATF’s Frames and Receivers Rule (officially Final Rule 2021R-05F, titled “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms”) is a 2022 regulation issued by the ATF. It updated the regulatory definitions of “firearm,” “frame,” and “receiver” under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). The rule effectively restricts the sale or transfer of most unfinished firearm frames and receivers that are not serialized – colloquially known as “80% firearms.” Although the official term is privately manufactured firearms (PMFs), anti-gun groups have demonized these items as “ghost guns.”
The rule was published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2022, and took effect on August 24, 2022. It remains in force following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision in Bondi v. VanDerStok (2025), which upheld the rule against a facial challenge.
Before the change, federal law generally defined a firearm as a single part that houses the hammer, bolt, or breechblock, and firing mechanism. The new rule expanded this to include partially completed frames or receivers (including certain parts kits) that have reached a stage of manufacture where they are clearly identifiable as an unfinished frame or receiver, or that are designed to, or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or converted to function as a frame or receiver.
The keyword is “readily.” The ATF defines “readily” as a process that is fairly or reasonably efficient, quick, and easy, taking into account factors such as time, tools, expertise, instructions, jigs or templates, and other elements. According to the ATF, selling a partially completed lower with a jig, template, or instructions can make it subject to regulation.
The rule primarily affects the commercial sale or transfer of unfinished precursor parts. Home builders are still free to privately manufacture their own PMFs without a federal firearms license (FFL) or serial number, as long as the firearms are not for sale and not transferred to prohibited persons.
However, the parts they purchase may now be regulated if sold as kits. Exemptions exist under the rule. A bare forging, a flat sheet without indexing, or a very incomplete kit requiring significant machining, expertise, or time is generally not regulated as a firearm. AR-15 lowers remain the serialized “receiver” under the prior grandfathered classification.
Many are wondering what is changing with the rule. Although the revised rule is still in draft form and the final language is subject to change, AmmoLand News spoke with sources at the ATF to get a high-level overview of the proposed changes. Polymer frames, such as those made by the now-defunct Polymer80, will remain subject to strict regulation. Nothing will change on that front.
Our sources indicate that certain metal products, such as the MUP-1 from JSD Supply, will now be permissible. JSD Supply previously sold an 80% Sig P320 kit before the regulatory change and was rumored to be working on a Sig P365 kit. If the new draft rule remains as currently written, those kits will once again be legal to sell and transfer.
This rule is just one of many expected changes that will lessen the ATF’s grip on the firearms industry. The updated rule isn’t earth-shattering, but it represents progress in rolling back some of former President Joe Biden’s use of government regulation to target law-abiding gun owners.
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.
President Donald Trump removed Attorney General Pam Bondi and named Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche as acting AG, putting the Justice Department under new leadership amid Epstein-related fallout. Image generated with AI, image of Pam Bondi from DOJ.
President Donald Trump informed Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday night that she would be stepping down, according to people familiar with the matter.
The conversation reportedly took place in the Oval Office shortly before Trump delivered a televised address on the ongoing conflict in Iran. By the time he finished speaking, Bondi’s tenure as the nation’s top law enforcement official had effectively come to an end, even though the formal announcement did not come until the following morning.
On Thursday, Trump acknowledged Bondi’s departure on Truth Social, praising her as “a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend.” He also noted that she had served in the role for about a year and would be moving on to opportunities in the private sector. Her deputy, Todd Blanche, has assumed the acting attorney general position.
According to multiple accounts, the decision had been in the works for some time. Ammoland News became aware of the discussion as early as December 2025. Tensions reportedly grew in part over the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Despite campaign expectations and pressure from lawmakers, the release of those materials has been slow, heavily redacted in places, and widely criticized by both supporters and critics of the administration.
Bondi, a longtime ally of Trump and former Florida attorney general, faced criticism from across the political spectrum. For some in Trump’s base, the Epstein issue became a persistent frustration that never seemed fully resolved.
At the same time, there were quieter concerns among gun rights advocates. Under Bondi’s leadership, the Justice Department continued defending certain provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) in court, including regulations involving suppressors and short-barreled firearms. While the department also pushed back against some state-level gun control measures, some Second Amendment supporters had hoped for a more aggressive approach overall. Many pointed out that the DOJ, while attacking state laws, tended to protect federal gun control measures.
With Bondi’s departure, attention is now turning to what direction the department may take next, particularly in ongoing litigation and policy decisions tied to firearms and transparency issues. Gun rights advocates hope that the change at the top will result in the DOJ stopping to defend what they see as unconstitutional laws, such as regulations on suppressors.
Speculation is already circulating about possible candidates to permanently fill the role. Among those mentioned is Lee Zeldin, the former New York congressman who is now head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who has maintained a strong conservative profile and support for gun rights. Zeldin was the co-sponsor of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and several other high-profile gun rights bills.
In the interim, Todd Blanche, who has worked closely with Trump in the past and previously served as a federal prosecutor, will lead the department in an acting capacity. Observers expect him to review pending matters, including the Epstein-related materials and active firearms cases.
The change marks another notable shift within the administration as it navigates both domestic policy challenges and international developments. How the Justice Department proceeds under new leadership, particularly on high-profile transparency issues and Second Amendment-related litigation, is likely to draw close attention in the weeks ahead.
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.
A DOJ legal opinion says the federal handgun mailing ban is unconstitutional, and USPS is now proposing rules that would allow lawful handgun shipments. iStock-1357038188
The Trump Administration, via the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), issued a Memorandum Opinion on January 15, 2026, pertaining to the general ban on the mailing of handguns by use of the Postal Service. The Memorandum declared the federal ban on mailing handguns to be unconstitutional. This was a significant step toward restoring rights traditionally protected by the Second Amendment.
Our history is full of famous figures ordering firearms by mail, from Bat Masterson to President Theodore Roosevelt. In 1927, a federal law banning the mailing of handguns went into effect. It is widely regarded as the first federal firearms law.
The Congressional record of the debate shows the purpose was to prevent black people from circumventing existing state and local handgun bans on the carry of concealed weapons by black men.
“Here we have laid bare the principal cause for the high murder rate in Memphis–the carrying by colored people of a concealed deadly weapon, most often a pistol. Can we not cope with this situation?” – Senator John K. Shields (D-TN), 1924
It took time for the act to be passed and become law. Senator Shields said the primary purpose was to prevent black people from circumventing state and local bans on the possession and carry of concealed handguns. This was done through the interstate shipping of handguns. Shields asserted that no law-abiding citizen had any lawful reason to carry a concealed weapon. The ban only affected the postal service. Private shippers were not banned from shipping handguns.
The current regulation proposed by the Postal Service is designed to bring postal regulations back into conformity with the Constitution, or at least with the OLC Memorandum’s finding.
“The proposed revisions expand the scope of mailable firearms compared to the existing regulations by allowing lawful handguns to be mailed under the same terms and conditions as lawful rifles and shotguns. These conditions continue to require, among other things, that mailed firearms be unloaded. Additionally, otherwise nonmailable handguns will remain mailable between authorized persons consistent with Section 1715.”
Handguns will be included as “Mailable firearms”. For mailing within a particular state, shipment of handguns will be required to use “Return Service Requested”. Tracking and signature capture at delivery will be required. For mailing to out-of-state addresses, by those without a Federal Firearms License, the following is required:
Out-of-State Mailings by Non-FFL Owners:Non-FFL owners may mailMailable Firearms to themselves or another person in another state forlawful activities under the following conditions.The mailpiece must:
Be addressed to the recipient.
Include the “in the care of” endorsement immediately preceding the name of the applicable temporary custodian.
Be opened by the recipient.
Be mailed using a class of mail, product, or Extra Service that provides tracking and signature capture at delivery.
The reform regulation will not go into effect until the comment period has lapsed. The comment period will begin at the time of publication in the Federal Register, expected on April 2, 2026, and continue for 30 days. Comments can be made after the proposed rule is published. Exactly when the regulation may go into effect is not certain at this time. If this rule is of interest, citizens can influence it through reasoned arguments submitted via comments at the link when the comment period is open.
One of the expected results of being able to send handguns through the postal service is a drop in the cost of ordering handguns remotely, through the Internet, telephone, or by mail. The cost of returning handguns to the manufacturer for warranty service should also drop. The cost of sending handguns through non-postal means has skyrocketed in recent years, along with privacy concerns.
The argument over the utility of concealed weapons continues to this day. Those opposed to an armed population claim that weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens, especially handguns, serve no useful purpose. Those supporting the reasoning behind the adoption of the Second Amendment claim multiple useful and necessary purposes. Research on the subject is divided.
The Second Amendment appears clear on the subject. The Supreme Court has issued a definitive opinion in the Bruen decision. The Second Amendment protects the right to be armed in public.
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.
Who thinks “lax U.S. gun laws” are responsible for Mexican cartel carnage? IMG iStock-913549340
“They were under siege by a Mexican cartel. Now these civilians fight back with AK-47s and grenades,” The Washington Post reports. “Residents in the Mexican central state of Guerrero are setting up self-defense patrols to keep a powerful cartel out of their mountain towns.”
That’s a good thing, right? Citizens who want to live their lives banding together to defend themselves against evil oppressors? That’s not why they’re posting this.
Because while it seems like the overwhelmed and outgunned Mexican citizens – who can’t rely on the government for justice – fighting for self-defense, freedom, and survival, are doing what any decent human being unwilling to live as a victim or a slave would do, that’s not the point of this story. So, the WaPo feigns understanding and objectivity but then shapes a narrative.
By lumping defenders in with “local gangs and vigilante groups, many of which are allied with the larger cartels,” and noting “Because Mexico has strict gun control laws, the vast majority of arms in Mexico are smuggled from the U.S. by cartels,” they’ve just been redefined as part of the “problem,” their motives notwithstanding. And the larger problem, per a prohibitionist narrative that keeps being recycled, is the carnage is caused by American weaponry being smuggled into Mexico, and that’s all due to the Second Amendment and “lax U.S. gun laws.”
— Crime Prevention Research Center (@CrimeResearch1) January 7, 2023
Fingers would be better pointed at Mexico’s pervasive corruption and tyrannical citizen disarmament edicts that have made a cartel black market both lucrative and inevitably bloody. And the narrative perpetuated by the article repeats the lies used so shamelessly to gin up domestic support for gun bans here.
Start with the grenades. These aren’t arms you can pick up at a gun show or from your local FFL.
From my January 2011 report, “Ordnance crossing into Mexico over border—its southern one”:
“Mexico… is also flooded with hand grenades … some of the grenade stockpiles are coming up from leftover military depots in Central America from the 1980s… Some have been taken/bought/stolen from the Mexican army itself.”
Later that year, I cited ATF actions concerning inert grenade hulls and controlled delivery to Mexico and attempts to retaliate against whistleblower Peter Forcelli by trying to undermine his credibility (also see my AmmoLandinterview with Forcelli and review of his book).
And there’s one other major lie being told, and this is a long known and calculated one originated by a veteran gun prohibitionist group.
The civilians are “Armed with military-grade weapons smuggled from the U.S.,” WaPo declares. Again, “thanks” to the National Firearms Act and the Hughes Amendment, “military grade” (full -auto capable) rifles are not something you can just “straw purchase” from a gun store and drive across the border. Whoever is getting the military stuff is getting it through corrupt official sources. The lie being promoted here plays right into the hands of the Violence Policy Center, that uses it to agitate for semi-auto bans:
“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”
Then there’s the other jaw of the pincer.
“Inside the Supply Line Delivering American Guns to Mexican Cartels,” The New York Times headline proclaims. “A surge of weapons is flowing from the U.S. to Mexico. These firearms — sourced from gun shops, shows, websites and apps — are funneled across the border to fuel the country’s most violent crimes.”
Heavy on anecdotes and estimates, the same old tricks used prior, during, and after Operation Fast and Furious “gunwalking” have been dusted off for reuse with a new generation of readers.
“About 80 percent of weapons seized by Mexican authorities come from the United States, [Mexico’s security minister, Omar Harfuch] said at a recent news conference,” readers are further “informed.”
“[B]oth Sinaloa Cartel and its rival Jalisco New Generation Cartel are increasingly armed with weapons like grenade launchers, grenades, machine guns and assault rifles,” they are told. What they’re not told is what “gun shops, shows, websites and apps” sell those things to Americans.
I’d like to share with you a bit of testimony, from the Statement of David Ogden, Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, before the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing entitled “Southern Border Violence: Homeland Security Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Responsibilities”, presented March 25, 2009. Just a small bit, really, but a critical one, almost lost in the 20 pages of his statement:
According to ATF’s Tracing Center, 90 percent of the firearms about which ATF receives information are traceable to the United States.
Read it again and compare it to what the antis are saying. It’s very different, isn’t it?
It’s not guns “seized” by Mexican authorities. It’s the unknown percentage of those seized then submitted to ATF for tracing. Both Minister Harfuch and The Times know that.
What is being ignored is the fact that the United States government (via Departments of Defense and State) sells thousands of military and non-military firearms to foreign governments, including Mexico and Central and South American countries…Many of these governments are notoriously corrupt and unstable. Moreover, we know that individuals in the Mexican police and military have ties to the drug cartels. It is highly reasonable, if not probable, that many of these weapons (and those sold to these nations in previous years), have now made their way onto the black market and thereby being funneled into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. If traced by the BATFE, any of the firearms above would return as “originating in the US.” Origination in the US clearly does not equate to an origination in the lawful US civilian market. [Emphasis added]
“Conviction of Top Mexican Cop Shows Corruption Problem, Not U.S. Guns,” I reported for Firearms News 14 years later. “Former Mexico Public Security Secretary Genaro Garcia Luna is guilty of drug trafficking, also showing new points on American guns in Mexico.”
No one is saying U.S. guns don’t get smuggled into Mexico just as certainly as drugs are smuggled from there to here. A reporter wishing to make that case will absolutely be able to find untold examples to exploit. But when they don’t present the complete picture and then rely on recycling the same canards that were debunked years ago, it needs to be called out by those who know better. Especially when “experience hath shewn” the point behind the propaganda is to gin up low information voter support for being swindled out of their rights.
The answer is to expose corruption and enhance border security, not undermine the security of a free state by infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
(NOTE: Some of the substantiating links used in this article go to stories from discontinued websites that are only available via the Internet Archive (“Wayback Machine”), and may load slowly or time out.)
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
Gabe Metcalf with his returned single-shot 20-gauge shotgun and six rounds of ammunition. Image Courtesy of Gabe Metcalf’s Mother, Vivian.
In the Gun Free School Zone case against Gabriel Metcalf in Billings, Montana, the authorities have returned Gabriel’s single-shot 20-gauge shotgun, an ammunition pouch, and the six rounds of 20-gauge ammunition that were seized when Gabriel was arrested on August 23, 2023.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the case illegitimate and remanded it to the District Court with instructions to dismiss. The Ninth Circuit opinion was sent to the District Court on September 23, 2025, just short of two years after Gabe was arrested.
AmmoLand has been at the forefront of reporting on this case, with over two dozen articles over the course of the last two and a half years.
Officer Stroble returned Gabe’s shotgun, ammunition, and ammo pouch. He does not appear happy or friendly. Image courtesy of Gabe Metcalf and Mother.
It is not clear if the officers were acting on behalf of the Billings Police Force or the ATF/Billings Police Task Force. Gabe says Officer Stroble was the officer who arrested him two and a half years ago as an officer in the task force. The arrest was a federal arrest based on the federal Gun Free School Zone Act. The task force was used to arrest Gabe after the Billings police, on a local TV station, said they could not arrest Gabe because he was not breaking the law.
Gabriel won his case in the Federal Courts. The Ninth Circuit did not say the Gun Free School Zone law was unconstitutional. They said Gabe should never have been indicted and tried.
Gabe and his mother, Vivian, suffered significant damages during the two and a half years of punishment by process in the courts. Gabe spent a month in jail and years on probation. His mother stopped her business as a seamstress. Their budding recycling business was destroyed. Their reputation was damaged, relationships destroyed. When I spoke with Gabe and his mother, I learned that Gabe’s property, particularly the shotgun, had not been returned months after the case was dismissed.
It has been common for police departments to fail to return property, even to those who win in the courts. Forcing the police to comply often costs more than the property is worth. My suggestion to Gabe and his mother was that they contact Gary Marbut for advice.
Gary Marbut is the founder and President of the Montana Shooting Sports Association MSSA. He is a legendary figure in Montana’s Second Amendment community.
Gary put forward the idea of sending a letter from the MSSA to a candidate for the US Senate in Montana, Kurt Alme. Kurt Alme was the United States Attorney for Montana, appointed by President Trump. Alme resigned from the US Attorney’s office on March 6, 2026. Gary sent the letter on March 10, 2026.
Kurt Alme’s predecessor had been appointed by President Biden. Kurt has good contacts in the US Attorney’s office in Montana. Timothy J. Racicot is currently the acting United States Attorney in Montana. U.S. Attorney Racicot was the acting U.S. Attorney assigned to the position by President Trump before Kurt Alme was appointed as the U.S. Attorney in Montana in 2025.
Racicot was the First Assistant U.S. Attorney during the previous administration, before becoming acting U.S. Attorney. Kurt Alme was Racicot’s boss for five months, from October 7, 2025 to March 6. 2026. The Ninth Circuit ordered the District Court to dismiss the case on September 23, about two weeks before Kurt Alme was appointed to be the United States Attorney for Montana, and became Timothy J. Racicot’s boss.
Kurt Alme was not in charge when the Metcalf Gun Free School Zone case was being prosecuted. It may be Kurt Alme was unfamiliar with the case, as it was ordered dismissed before he was appointed.
On March 10, Gary Marbut sent Kurt Alme a letter to remind him of the case. On March 20, 2026, Gabe’s shotgun was returned by Officer Strobel. Stroble is said to be the same officer who had arrested Gabe. Gabe and his mother received a phone call on or about March 20th, which was difficult to identify. When called back, the officer on the phone wanted Gabe to come to their office to pick up the shotgun.
Gabe insisted his shotgun be returned to where it had been seized.
Within half an hour, on March 20th, at about 0930, the shotgun was returned. Such a quick response makes it appear the return was considered a high priority.
Because of the nature and high profile of the case, and because Kurt Alme had already resigned as United States Attorney before the letter from Gary Marbut was sent, there is no documented evidence that the letter was responsible for the shotgun being returned. The timeline implies that such may be the case.
Gabe’s mother, Vivian, reminded the officers who were returning the shotgun, the front door did not work properly. According to Gabe’s mother, it was unnecessarily damaged when the officers served a warrant on August 23, 2023, the day Gabe was peaceably arrested outside his home.
Gabe was arrested when he went to talk to officers at a parking lot across the street outside his home. Gabe said he took the initiative to talk to them. He had the understanding the situation would be resolved in his favor. Gabe said he had left the shotgun inside, as he had said he would do, to the same officers, days earlier.
The arrest, indictment, trial, appeal, and dismissal were all uncalled for.
It is unknown if Gabe and his mother will ever be made whole for their years of suffering and punishment by the process.
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.
Screenshot from KIRO 7’s March 20 coverage showing the station’s original “military machine gun” framing. Image: Screenshot/KIRO 7
In the category of image over substance, Seattle’s KIRO 7 appears to have turned a felon-in-possession arrest into yet another misleading anti-gun scare story.
On March 20, KIRO 7 ran the headline: “Military machine gun found on public bus rider during KCSO increased patrols.” In the story, the station reported that King County Sheriff’s Office deputies encountered a man smoking marijuana on a bus, removed him from the bus, and during a pat-down found “a gun — an Uzi with a silencer” concealed under his shirt and tucked down his pants. KIRO then told readers, “An Uzi is a military-grade machine gun that is generally illegal to own in the United States.”
That is a dramatic claim. It is also one that appears not to match the gun KIRO showed its audience.
By the very next day, KIRO’s own follow-up reporting described the seized firearm differently. Instead of repeating the “military machine gun” line, the station referred to it as “a reproduction .22 caliber Uzi-style machine gun with a fake suppressor.” That wording is still sloppy, because a semi-automatic .22 replica is not a machine gun. But it strongly suggests the original story exaggerated what deputies had actually recovered.
That distinction is not a technicality. If the firearm shown was in fact a .22-caliber UZI-style replica, labeling it a “military machine gun” was not just imprecise wording. It gave viewers a false impression about what the suspect actually possessed.
Product listings make the likely explanation even more obvious. Walther has marketed a semi-automatic UZI .22 LR tactical rimfire replica, describing it as a UZI rimfire replica and explicitly identifying it as a semi-auto .22 LR rifle, not a select-fire submachine gun.
That appears consistent with what KIRO eventually reported: a “reproduction .22 caliber Uzi-style” firearm with a “fake suppressor.”
KIRO correctly reported that the man was a convicted felon, which would make his possession of any firearm unlawful regardless of whether the gun was a real machine gun or a semi-auto .22 clone. That was already a valid story. The real offense was serious enough on its own. There was no need to inflate it into a “military machine gun” narrative if the object shown was actually a rimfire replica.
Unfortunately, this kind of framing has a long history. In its well-known paper on “assault weapons,” Violence Policy Center openly argued that public confusion between machine guns and semi-automatic firearms could be politically useful, writing that “anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun.” That line has aged better than the media outlets that keep proving him right.
If King County deputies recovered a firearm from a prohibited person, report that. If the gun was a .22-caliber UZI-style replica with a fake suppressor, report that too. But telling the public a “military machine gun” was found on a bus rider, then quietly shifting to “reproduction .22 caliber Uzi-style” language later, is bad reporting and exactly why people have shifted away from mainstream media sources.
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.
AI-generated illustration depicting New York Attorney General Letitia James, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the legal fight over PLCAA in NSSF v. James.
The fight over New York’s gun-industry liability law is getting bigger, and the message now reaching the U.S. Supreme Court is hard to miss: this is not just a trade dispute, and it is not just another blue-state consumer protection case dressed up in legal jargon. According to two major amicus briefs filed in support of certiorari in National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Letitia James, New York is trying to do through lawfare what anti-gun politicians have failed to do through the normal legislative process—use the courts to choke off the lawful commerce in arms.
One of those briefs comes from the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, American Suppressor Association, and Independence Institute. The other comes from Montana and 23 additional states. Together, they make a serious and layered argument:
New York’s statute is an attempt to sidestep the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), revive the same kind of junk litigation Congress barred in 2005, and let one hostile state pressure gun makers and sellers across the country to live under New York’s anti-gun policies.
In the cert petition, petitioners tell the justices the real question is whether PLCAA’s narrow predicate exception can be stretched to let states bring the same tort-style lawsuits Congress enacted the law to stop, simply by codifying general nuisance or negligence principles into a statute aimed at the firearms industry. The petition argues that the Second Circuit green-lit exactly that move, creating a circuit split and opening the door for states to nullify federal law through hostile legislation and coordinated litigation.
Gun rights groups’ brief provides historical context. It argues that suppressing the lawful trade in arms has always been one of the most effective ways to disarm a free people.
As the brief puts it, “Suppressing commerce in arms has long been a means of disarming Americans.”
That theme runs through the filing from beginning to end. The amici trace how British authorities, before the American Revolution, sought to control the colonists not merely by force of arms, but by restricting gunpowder, arms imports, and domestic arms commerce.
In the brief’s telling, the Founding generation understood exactly what those restrictions meant: if government can cut off the supply of arms, it can reduce the people to dependence and submission.
That is why the filing spends so much time on the 1770s. It recounts General Thomas Gage’s restrictions on powder in Massachusetts, the seizure of powder stores, the British embargo on importing arms and ammunition into America, and colonial writings that openly described those measures as efforts to disarm and enslave the people.
One of the brief’s most powerful historical passages cites South Carolina patriots declaring that the British prohibition on arms exports “too clearly appears a design of disarming the people of America, in order the more speedily to dragoon and enslave them.” The brief goes on to argue that Americans did not treat those policies as technical regulatory disputes. They answered them by seizing powder, smuggling arms, ramping up domestic manufacture, and ultimately fighting.
In one blunt line, the brief states, “At the Lexington Green and the Concord Bridge, the British demonstrated that they were willing to kill Americans to take their arms.Coercive disarmament initiated the war.”
The right to keep and bear arms has always depended in part on the ability to make, sell, import, and acquire arms through lawful commerce. The brief even quotes Thomas Jefferson writing in 1793 that American citizens “have always been free to make, vend, and export arms. It is the constant occupation and livelihood of some of them.”
That is the principle the amici say New York threatens now, not with redcoats and royal decrees, but with litigation schemes aimed at strangling the industry from the outside.
The states’ brief adds a different kind of force. Where the NRA-led filing is rich in history and constitutional meaning, the 24-state brief is more direct about the mechanics of the legal end-run.
It says outright that anti-gun activists turned to the courts after they failed to get the results they wanted from Congress and state legislatures. It describes the strategy in plain terms: use novel legal theories, pile up lawsuits, and force firearms companies into bankruptcy or coerced policy concessions even if the claims never truly belonged in court.
According to the states, Congress enacted PLCAA because it recognized that the right to keep and bear arms would be hollow if anti-gun officials could simply destroy the firearms industry through litigation costs and hostile judgments.
Both briefs revisit the coordinated lawsuits of the late 1990s and early 2000s, when cities and activists pursued gun makers under theories like public nuisance and other creative claims designed to impose liability for criminal misuse by third parties. The gun rights groups’ brief notes that some of these theories treated ordinary handguns as “defective” simply because criminals also used them, or tried to liken lawful firearms manufacturing to “ultrahazardous activity.” The states’ brief is even more explicit about the strategy, pointing to public statements from anti-gun officials who openly admitted they were trying to create law through litigation after losing in the legislature.
Congress saw all of that and responded with PLCAA. That is the center of this case. The amici argue that PLCAA was specifically enacted to stop lawsuits against lawful manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and trade associations for harm caused by the criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms by third parties.
The law contains narrow exceptions, but both briefs argue those exceptions were never meant to become loopholes big enough for hostile states to drive the entire old litigation model through. The Supreme Court itself said last year in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos that PLCAA’s exceptions cannot be read so broadly that they “swallow most of the rule.” Both amicus briefs hammer that point.
That brings the case back to New York. According to the states’ brief, New York’s law was openly designed to get around PLCAA by recasting the same nuisance-style theories Congress barred. The brief points to New York Governor Cuomo’s own words, noting that the law was intended to “reinstate the public nuisance liability for gun manufacturers” and to correct what state officials viewed as the federal “mistake” of PLCAA.
In other words, the amici are telling the Court this was never subtle. New York did not stumble into a novel theory by accident. It built a statute to restore the very cause of action Congress wiped out.
Twenty-four states are telling the Supreme Court that the Second Circuit’s decision lets a single state gut federal law by slapping firearms-specific language onto what is still, at bottom, a broad nuisance theory aimed at lawful commerce. The brief argues that approach conflicts with decisions from the Ninth Circuit and the D.C. Court of Appeals, both of which rejected similar attempts to turn general laws into PLCAA “predicate” statutes. It also leans on Judge Jacobs’ concurrence in the Second Circuit, where he said the exception should not be stretched to cover general-purpose nuisance statutes with firearms references grafted onto them.
That split matters. It gives the justices a real reason to take the case now instead of waiting around while more anti-gun states copy New York’s approach. And that is not a hypothetical concern. The gun rights groups’ brief warns that ten other states have already enacted similar laws, and the states’ brief points to lawsuits already filed under New York’s statute. Once that model spreads, the damage does not stay local. It becomes national, because the target is the national firearms market.
The states’ brief presses that point with another argument the gun rights groups’ filing touched less directly: the Dormant Commerce Clause. That section of the filing argues New York is not just regulating conduct inside New York.
New York is trying to force manufacturers and sellers everywhere to adopt “reasonable controls and procedures” aimed at preventing misuse in New York, on pain of liability. In practical terms, that means out-of-state companies are forced to tailor nationwide conduct to satisfy one hostile state’s standards, or else risk crushing lawsuits. That is a serious claim because it frames New York’s law not just as a PLCAA problem, but as an attempt to project New York policy far beyond New York’s borders.
If hostile states can sidestep PLCAA and use lawfare to bleed the firearms industry dry, they do not need outright confiscation to weaken the Second Amendment. They can attack the supply chain, drive up costs, shrink access, and erode the right piece by piece. A hostile government does not need to confiscate every rifle or pistol if it can make it legally and financially impossible to manufacture, distribute, insure, or sell them on workable terms.
The end result is the same: fewer choices, higher prices, fewer dealers, a weaker industry, and a right that still exists on paper while becoming harder to exercise in the real world.
That concern is not limited to civilian ownership either. Both briefs emphasize that Congress viewed the firearms industry as important not only to law-abiding citizens, but also to law enforcement and national defense.
The gun rights groups’ brief notes that Congress found national security implications in efforts to bankrupt the industry. The states’ brief echoes that concern, saying the amici states are seeking to protect not just their citizens’ Second Amendment rights but also “the industrial base” that equips police and military forces. That is a reminder that the anti-industry strategy has consequences well beyond the courtroom or a single policy fight.
Taken together, these two amicus briefs give the Supreme Court a full picture. One explains why arms commerce has always been bound with liberty itself. The other explains why Congress passed PLCAA, how New York is trying to slip around it, and why the Court should step in before that workaround spreads further. The gun-rights side is not asking the justices to create something new here. It is asking them to enforce the law Congress already passed and stop states from nullifying it through creative relabeling.
If the Court grants review, NSSF v. James could become one of the most important gun-law cases on the docket, not because it directly asks whether a particular weapon or carry rule is constitutional, but because it goes to a more basic question: can anti-gun states use lawfare to accomplish the slow destruction of the firearms industry after Congress explicitly told them they could not?
These filings leave no doubt how the amici answer that question. They see New York’s statute as a direct threat to PLCAA, to the lawful firearms market, and to the practical ability of Americans to exercise a constitutional right that means very little if government can cripple the commerce that sustains it.
