Everytown Pushes AI Gun Restrictions That Could Censor Lawful Firearms Information

AI-generated firearms information is blocked from reaching a user in this conceptual illustration of Everytown’s push for chatbot restrictions. Image generated with AI for AmmoLand News.

Everytown is the anti-Second Amendment activist group funded in large part by Michael Bloomberg. Everytown Research has published a report calling on AI companies to integrate user-restriction measures into their AI programs. The report is titled “Artificially Assisted Gun Violence: Chatbot Risks and Preventative Steps for Responsible AI Companies.”

The report has five listed authors: Krystal LoPilato, Sriraman Madhavan, Ruhi Bengali, Olivia Li, and Justin Wagner. 

A common criticism of Everytown is the use of propaganda terms such as “Gun Violence“.  The term creates an association of guns and immoral violence. It conflates separate issues of suicide, homicide and accidents. The use of the term raises questions about the bias of the authors.

Another criticism is the claim the leading cause of death among “Children and Teens” are various suicides, homicides, and accidents where firearms are used or abused. The categorization lumps adults and children together. Many of the deaths are homicides committed by gang members who are often 15-17 years old, which are unlikely to be stopped with firearms legislation. The claim is misleading.

Now, an organization built on anti-gun propaganda is demanding that AI listen to them first over other legitimate firearms and gun rights outlets.

Everytown Wants AI Companies to Restrict Firearms Information

The anti-gun report includes several individual cases that are cited to build a case for owners of AI programs to create a censorship regime within the programs. This is a common tactic used to pass legislation. Here, it is used to push private censorship. Restriction of some material from the view of children has always been legitimate.

Everytown points out that large language model AI programs are trained to be agreeable and sympathetic to prolong contact. When this becomes an amoral response without any concern for consequences, bad results can happen. An AI model can encourage a person to commit suicide or to commit mass murder. In some states, encouraging suicide can be criminal. Encouraging mass murder would often be criminal, depending on the specific language used.

Stopping AI programs from encouraging suicide and mass murder is not particularly controversial. Everytown, unsurprisingly, goes far beyond this goal.

They do not ask AI owners to only stop conversations encouraging suicide and/or mass murder. They extend the information covered to many ordinary conversations about firearms in general, with anyone.

Everytown implies actions which have long been legal are generally illegal. Using the term “unsafe” they claim AI programs should:

 “..refuse to advise users on how to illegally acquire, modify or manufacture firearms, firearm parts, or accessories.”

This is an extremely complicated legal question. Most modification of firearms, manufacture of firearms, or acquisition of firearms or firearm parts is moral and legal.  The default position of an AI restriction would likely stop far more moral and legal actions than illegal actions.

Everytown implies the prohibitions on minors should extend to young adults 18-21. The report uses the word “unsafe” to lump individuals making guns for themselves with people making illegal machine guns. Not surprisingly, Everytown wants the AI owners to incorporate Everytown’s view on how firearms should be safely used and stored into how the AI views such topics. Keeping firearms locked up and unloaded makes them extremely difficult to use for defense of self and home.

AI Should Respect Second Amendment Rights

Missing from the paper is any consideration of rights protected by the Second Amendment, or of positive uses of firearms for self-defense, recreation, or defense against tyranny. The legal landscape is changing rapidly. It appears the rights of young adults to acquire firearms will be upheld in the courts as a right protected by the Second Amendment. The right to acquire firearms is gaining traction as an ancillary right included with the right to keep and bear arms.

AI is becoming a powerful, new tool. It should not be used to encourage suicide or murder. It should not be used to discourage the exercise of Second Amendment rights or the use of any of the Bill of Rights. Everytown’s view of “gun safety is a direct assault on rights protected by the Second Amendment.

AI owners would be wise to incorporate respect for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution into AI programs.  Making firearms for personal use has been a part of American gun culture since before the Constitution. Such a way to acquire firearms is implicitly covered by the Second Amendment.

Related: How the Orwellian Term “Gun Violence” is used to Push Citizen Disarmament

---

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/OijqXUF
via IFTTT

Oklahoma Guardsman Faces D.C. Gun Felony as Congress Stalls on Carry Reciprocity

Oklahoma Guardsman Jakob Noonan’s felony carry charge highlights the consequences of conflicting gun laws and Congress’s failure to pass national carry reciprocity. Original AI-generated editorial illustration by AmmoLand News.

Jakob Noonan, a 22-year-old Oklahoma National Guard specialist deployed to Washington, D.C., has been arrested and charged with a felony for carrying a firearm the District does not recognize as lawful.

Spc. Noonan was in the capital as part of the National Guard mission ordered by President Donald Trump. Last week, U.S. Park Police pulled him over in a Honda SUV while he was riding with a fellow Guard member. The stop was for a vehicle registration that expired in May. Noonan was off duty, out of uniform, and in his personal vehicle. Officers spotted an empty holster in the back seat and asked whether he had a gun. He told them he did.

When asked whether he had a Washington, D.C., concealed-carry permit, he said he did not.

“He stated that Oklahoma is an open-carry state and that the firearm was registered to him in Oklahoma. He acknowledged that he did not possess a valid District of Columbia concealed-carry permit,” according to a federal affidavit filed in D.C. Superior Court. A records check confirmed he had no District permit.

The gun, a 9mm Canik pistol, was legally purchased in Oklahoma, and Noonan legally carried it there. He has no criminal record. Nothing in the public account suggests he brandished the pistol, threatened anyone, or tried to hide it once officers asked. He answered the question. The original arrest also cited him for carrying 12 rounds of ammunition, but he was not charged on that count. He was charged with carrying a pistol without a license, a felony that can bring a fine and up to five years in prison under the D.C. criminal code.

Noonan made his first court appearance on Sept. 29 in D.C. Superior Court, where a court-appointed attorney represented him. Inmate records indicated he was out of jail custody by the end of the week. The case is still a felony prosecution of a deployed Guardsman whose offense was carrying a handgun that was legal in the state that sent him.

That is the entire case. A traffic stop for an expired tag became a felony gun case because the District of Columbia does not honor the carry rights of the other 50 states, and because Congress has still not fixed that.

Oklahoma is a constitutional-carry state. A law-abiding adult there may carry a handgun openly or concealed without a permit. Noonan told officers the pistol was his and that it was registered to him at home. In most of the country, that would have ended the gun portion of the stop. In Washington, it was probable cause. D.C. requires its own registration and its own carry license. An out-of-state permit is not enough. Lawful carry in a permitless state is not enough. The District treats both as a felony.

The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, H.R. 38 in the House and S. 65 in the Senate, would require states and the District to recognize a concealed-carry license from another state and the lawful permitless carry of residents from constitutional-carry states. Rep. Richard Hudson, Republican of North Carolina, reintroduced the House bill on the first day of the 119th Congress. The House Judiciary Committee reported it in October 2025. It has roughly 189 cosponsors and has been waiting on the Union Calendar for a floor vote. Sen. John Cornyn’s (R-TX) companion bill has not moved.

A broader bill, Rep. Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) National Constitutional Carry Act, would go further and set a national permitless standard. It has fewer cosponsors, and even gun-rights groups that prefer that approach have said the votes are not there yet.

President Trump has said his administration is working on a national right-to-carry measure. The promise is not new. Neither is the stall. Reciprocity has been introduced in Congress and has never reached the president’s desk. The Senate filibuster is the usual explanation. The other explanation is that Republican leadership has never treated the bill as must-pass.

Noonan is the result of this delay, now exemplified in a police report. A service member can be ordered to Washington, live there temporarily, and still have no legal way to carry the pistol he already owns unless he navigates the District’s permit system.

D.C. is not a shall-issue jurisdiction in any meaningful sense for an out-of-state Guardsman on a temporary deployment since it requires hours of training, registering the firearm, and applying in person. By the time the permit would be issued, the deployment would be over. The practical choice is to leave the gun at home or risk a felony. He chose wrong by the District’s rules and right by the rules of the state that trained him.

A driver’s license works across state lines because Congress and the states decided a patchwork of non-recognition was intolerable. Carry rights still stop at arbitrary borders. California, New York, and the District honor no out-of-state permits. A truck driver, a military spouse, or a National Guard specialist can be legal at breakfast and a felon at lunch without ever handling the gun differently.

The Supreme Court has denied a petition in Johnson v. Jacobson, brought by a long-haul driver whose Georgia and Florida permits Minnesota refuses to recognize. The Eighth Circuit treated reciprocity as a policy courtesy. The petition argued the Second Amendment means the same thing in every state. The Court will not hear the case.

Congress does not have to wait on that petition. H.R. 38 is already through committee. A floor vote would force members to pick a side: either a law-abiding carrier keeps his rights when he crosses a state line, or the capital keeps the power to jail soldiers for guns that were legal when they left home.

Noonan is not accused of a violent crime. He is not accused of robbery, threatening, or fighting. He is accused of having a Canik in a city that does not care that Oklahoma already decided he could have it. If that is the standard, every Guardsman on this deployment is one expired tag and one honest answer away from the same affidavit.

National reciprocity would not give him a free pass on the registration stop. It would stop the District from turning a lawful gun owner into a felon for crossing a line the federal government drew and then ordered him to stand on.

Related: Supreme Court Considers Concealed Carry Reciprocity Fight

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

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

NRA Board Sends Seat-Cut Plan Back for Study Ahead of 2027 Election

By Jeff Knox, member, NRA Board of Directors since May, 2024

NRA Board member Jeff Knox reports on September’s board-size debate, bylaw changes, and the approaching 2027 director election. Original AI-generated illustration by AmmoLand News using OpenAI.

The NRA held its Fall Board and committee meetings in Northern Virginia from September 16th through the 19th. Since we only meet in person three times per year, there’s always a lot of work to be done at these meetings.

The main business was several bylaw amendment proposals. A few were somewhat controversial, so sides had formed up well before we arrived at the hotel in Reston. Even so, the floor debate was not dramatic. This Board is solid and down-to-earth, with little political gamesmanship or parliamentary trickery. After three days of committee meetings, most are fairly well informed about the issues being discussed in the board meeting, and they have already decided their position by the time a motion hits the floor.

The proposal of most interest to NRA members was a Bylaw amendment proposal from President Bachenberg. The proposal was to amend the Bylaws to reduce the size of the Board by ten seats per year for the next three years, beginning with the current election. So, rather than 26 seats to fill in the upcoming election, there would be only 16.

I was unhappy with the way the proposal had come about and been dropped on the Board by the President, but was prepared to vote in favor if it had come down to a straight up-or-down vote, simply because I originally ran on a platform of reducing the Board size. Even if I didn’t think this was the best way to accomplish that goal, I felt it would at least be a step in the right direction and could be cleaned up in future meetings.

Thankfully, as far as I’m concerned, it didn’t come to that. Amanda Suffecool, the Chair of the Special Committee on Organization (of which I am a member), stood and moved that the proposal be remanded to that committee for further study and recommendations. Amanda’s motion passed overwhelmingly, and the matter was resolved, at least for the time being.

The fact that this proposal hadn’t been brought to the Committee on Organization previously was one of my major problems with it. The Committee was created and specifically tasked with “studying, recommending and where appropriate, advising in the implementation of board composition…” That seems pretty clear, and the Committee had already been researching the important questions that really need to be asked before launching into a reform like this. Such as, what specific problem(s) are we trying to solve, and would this proposal actually solve, or at least favorably impact it?

The Committee immediately began coordinating next steps to accelerate its progress on this issue, including building lists of questions that need answers, surveys for Board members and for Association members to get a better feel for their specific concerns, and planning online and in-person meetings of the Committee (at Committee members’ own expense) to bring the information and ideas together for possible action at the January Board meeting.

While the vote to remand the President’s proposal to the committee will certainly extend the process of “right-sizing” the board, at least the next election cycle, it also reduces the chances of doing something that we, and the members, end up regretting down the line.

I’m surprised that I haven’t seen more about this meeting, and this vote in particular, in the press and on social media. I was expecting some diatribes about the “reformers” reneging on their promises and the like, but I’ve not seen a lot of that. Some, but not a lot. From my discussions with other Directors, I think the vast majority agree that the Board should be smaller, but ideas on exactly why we think that, how much smaller, and how to get there are all over the map. I’ll keep you posted on our progress.

The other Bylaw amendment proposals voted on in this meeting included some that require member approval. The board can recommend changes, but the membership has to approve them by voting on them in the next election. If you’ve ever looked at our Bylaws (which all members should), you might have noticed that some parts are printed in Bold Italic print. Those parts can only be amended or repealed by a vote of the membership, while the rest can be changed by the Board of Directors. We’re asking our members to approve a few relatively minor changes to some Bold Italic text in the upcoming election.

The proposals have been combined for simplicity, so there will only be one question to either approve or reject the proposed changes. The first part changes a couple of titles of officers to clarify their roles and stop ongoing confusion. Specifically, we want to shift the title from “Executive Vice President” to “Chief Executive Officer,” and that of “Executive Director of NRA General Operations” to “Chief Operating Officer.” Adopting the proposal wouldn’t change the duties or responsibilities of either of them, just their titles.

The second part of the proposal would strike a provision that forbids the board from creating or deleting any officer positions without prior permission from the membership. No one recalls why this provision was added to the Bylaws, but it created a problem when we were required by the court to add a Chief Compliance Officer last year. It’s also generated confusion when we’ve wanted to use titles like Chief Technology Officer, because people think “Officer” in the title means they’re legally an officer of the corporation, which is incorrect. To avoid this confusion and unnecessary delays, if we do need to add or remove an officer position in the future, we’d like to remove this provision.

The board passed several other Bylaw amendments as follows:

• New provisions and amendments providing for, and authorizing the scope and duties of the Chief Compliance Officer.
• An amendment to incorporate much of our conflict of interest policy into the text of the Bylaws.
• Amendments to change most of the salaried officer positions from “elected” to “appointed with ratification by the board,” which is mostly just a technical change to make it easier to hire quality people, and which doesn’t change duties or responsibilities of any of those officers.
• A resolution requiring directors to inform the Secretary whenever they leave a board meeting prior to its conclusion, so we always maintain a quorum count and can track attendance.
• A proposal to repeal a section of the Bylaws which requires 5 years as a Life Member in order to be eligible to run for a director seat failed, so that minimum requirement remains.

The final business from the Bylaws and Resolutions Committee was the passage of three memorial resolutions for directors who passed away this year. One of the longest-serving directors and one of the shortest-serving directors both died on the same morning. Wayne Anthony Ross of Alaska was first elected to the Board in 1980 and served almost continuously for the rest of his life, with only a short break in the early ‘90s. He passed away on April 18, 2026, as did Lynn Gipson of Illinois, who had just been elected to a one-year term on the board, but hadn’t yet been sworn in. In addition, former President and member of the Executive Council, Allan Cors, passed away on August 10, 2026.

Shortly after the board meeting, the Nominating Committee released its list of nominees for the 2027 election. My name was on the list, as well as my compadre Rocky Marshall (who serves as Second Vice President). However, the committee did not nominate the other half of our “Four for Reform” slate, Judge Phil Journey and Dennis Fusaro.

Both Phil and Dennis are circulating petitions to get on the ballot. They have my endorsement, and I encourage Voting Members of NRA – that’s Annual Members with at least 5 years of consecutive membership, and any Life Members – to follow the links below and sign their petitions. You’ll need your NRA Membership Number.

I’ll undoubtedly have more to say about the elections in the coming weeks.

• Phil Journey Petition
• Dennis Fusaro Petition

Related: NRA 2026 Director Election Results Show Reformers Gaining Ground

---

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a dedicated political activist and the director of The Firearms Coalition, following in the footsteps of his father, Neal Knox. In 2024, Jeff was elected to the NRA Board of Directors, underscoring his lifelong commitment to protecting the Second Amendment. The Knox family has played a pivotal role in the ongoing struggle for gun rights, a legacy documented in the book Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War, authored by Jeff’s brother, Chris Knox.

Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, The Firearms Coalition is a network of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs, and civil rights organizations. The Coalition supports grassroots efforts by providing education, analysis of current issues, and a historical perspective on the gun rights movement. For more information, visit www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

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

New Jersey Asks Supreme Court to Revisit Its AR-15 and Magazine Ban Defeat

New Jersey asks the Supreme Court to revisit its rifle and magazine ban defeat after the justices decide Viramontes and Grant. IMG Duncan Johnson

New Jersey has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revisit the ruling that struck down its bans on covered semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds. Its petition ties both prohibitions to the coming decision in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, making clear why the constitutional rule in those AR-15 cases matters to gun owners far beyond Illinois and Connecticut.

The October 1 petition, brought by Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and other state officials, asks the justices to hold the New Jersey case until they decide Viramontes and Grant. Then, “if appropriate,” the state wants the Court to grant review, vacate the Third Circuit’s judgment, and send the case back for reconsideration.

New Jersey lost on both rifles and magazines. It now wants another opportunity to defend both bans under whatever rule the Supreme Court announces.

New Jersey Wants Both Bans Reconsidered

The petition follows the July 17 en banc decision in the combined New Jersey litigation, including the ANJRPC and Cheeseman challenges. Ten of the Third Circuit’s 15 judges joined the judgment holding the challenged rifle and magazine prohibitions unconstitutional.

As AmmoLand reported after that ruling, the court rejected New Jersey’s attempt to exclude ordinary semiautomatic rifles from the Second Amendment. It also recognized magazines as protected arms and rejected the state’s politically selected ten-round cutoff.

The ruling covers the semiautomatic rifles challenged under New Jersey’s assault-firearm provisions and magazines holding more than ten rounds. Challenges involving semiautomatic pistols, shotguns, and other covered weapons were returned for further proceedings.

The state’s anticipated Supreme Court petition has now arrived. Its requested remedy would reopen a judgment gun owners already won.

Why the AR-15 Cases Matter to Magazine Bans

Viramontes and Grant are scheduled for argument December 2, beginning at 10 a.m. The consolidated cases concern Cook County’s and Connecticut’s prohibitions on AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

Those granted questions do not directly challenge standalone magazine bans. But New Jersey argues that the decision will likely clarify the standard for magazine restrictions because rifle and magazine challenges present “overlapping methodological questions.”

That connection is central to the national fight.

Courts upholding bans have disputed what counts as an “arm,” how common use should be measured, and whether historical restrictions justify prohibiting possession of modern firearms and magazines. The Third Circuit rejected theories that reduce constitutional protection to whatever equipment judges believe citizens need.

A gun owner does not have to empty a magazine during a defensive shooting to establish its lawful purpose. Keeping a loaded firearm ready for an emergency is itself an exercise of the right. The Constitution does not require Americans to prove that the eleventh round will save their lives before they may possess it.

ANJRPC has already pressed the magazine issue in its own amicus brief supporting the rifle challengers. As AmmoLand’s amicus roundup explains, the organization seeks guidance for magazine litigation as well as meaningful limits on historical analogies.

New Jersey and the gun-rights plaintiffs recognize the connection. They want opposite results.

Common Use Must Have Constitutional Consequences

The Third Circuit’s decision created a direct conflict with appellate rulings upholding rifle or magazine bans. New Jersey’s petition brings its losing side of that conflict to the Supreme Court.

The constitutional principle is straightforward: government cannot ban commonly possessed arms for lawful purposes by attaching an inflammatory label to them. An AR-15 does not lose protection because lawmakers call it an “assault weapon.” A commonly owned magazine does not become constitutionally disposable because they call its capacity “large.”

A clear Supreme Court decision enforcing that principle could reinforce the Third Circuit’s ruling and undermine the reasoning used to sustain magazine bans elsewhere. A narrow decision leaving those questions unresolved could permit more years of litigation.

That concern is already part of AmmoLand’s coverage of Duncan v. Bonta. California’s magazine-ban challengers have sought direct review rather than another cycle of waiting, reconsideration, and a fresh Supreme Court petition.

New Jersey specifically requests a hold followed by a possible return to the lower courts. Gun owners should understand what that could mean for the time required to obtain enforceable relief.

New Jersey’s Bans Remain Enforceable

The October petition does not create a new stay. The Third Circuit stayed its mandate on August 4, allowing New Jersey’s restrictions to remain enforceable while Supreme Court proceedings unfold.

The July judgment has not been vacated. The Supreme Court has not granted this petition or added magazine bans to the questions it will decide in Viramontes and Grant.

New Jersey has secured delay and is seeking reconsideration. Its citizens remain subject to prohibitions the Third Circuit held unconstitutional.

The coming AR-15 decision must give lower courts a rule they cannot evade through legislative labels, artificial distinctions between rifles and their magazines, or demands that citizens justify owning effective defensive arms. New Jersey’s petition shows exactly how much rides on that rule.

Related: DOJ Confirms It Won’t Appeal NFA Ruling on Suppressors and Short-Barreled Guns

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/QsfuZ4q
via IFTTT

DOJ Confirms It Won’t Appeal NFA Ruling on Suppressors and Short-Barreled Guns

DOJ has formally confirmed it will not appeal the Silencer Shop NFA ruling. The injunction protects covered plaintiffs, members, and customers from enforcement of specified registration and approval requirements. IMG Tim Potter

The Justice Department has formally notified Congress that it will not appeal the federal ruling blocking enforcement of major National Firearms Act requirements against protected gun owners and businesses. The decision leaves a permanent injunction in place against key parts of the federal registration and approval scheme for suppressors and short-barreled firearms.

But the case still has unfinished business. Nine plaintiff states want the court to clarify whether the injunction covers all relevant transfers within their borders and whether ATF must identify or notify the people protected by it. DOJ wants more time to answer while the agency finishes public guidance.

For gun owners, that is the next consequential question: how will the government implement a judgment it has decided not to appeal?

DOJ Puts Its No-Appeal Decision in Writing

In a September 24 letter to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, Solicitor General D. John Sauer wrote that the Justice Department “has determined not to file an appeal” in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF. The letter, filed in court on October 1, provides formal confirmation of the decision AmmoLand reported in September after President Donald Trump directed the DOJ not to contest the ruling.

Sauer’s notice summarizes the judgment and its limits. It does not announce a new injunction, repeal the NFA, or publish ATF’s transfer instructions. The underlying victory came on August 5, when U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled in the consolidated Silencer Shop Foundation and Jensen cases.

The injunction took effect August 13 after a seven-day stay expired. Covered suppressor transfers without Form 4s or NFA registration were already taking place. DOJ’s formal notice now confirms that the department will not pursue an appeal seeking to undo that judgment.

Washington Lost the Constitutional Basis for Its Registry

Congress reduced the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons,” or AOWs, to zero. Yet it left the accompanying registration and approval machinery standing. The government still wanted Americans to submit paperwork, obtain permission, and register their property under a system historically justified as necessary to administer a tax.

The court rejected that arrangement. As Sauer explains, Hendrix concluded that the challenged provisions could no longer be sustained under Congress’s taxing power. The court also rejected the attempt to preserve them under Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce.

That is an important constitutional limit. The federal government possesses enumerated powers. An agency cannot keep regulating Americans simply because it has been doing so for decades.

The court did not decide the Second Amendment claims because its enumerated-powers ruling supplied the relief. The NFA’s registration and permission requirements were always unconstitutional infringements and were seen as such without a connected tax.

A Permanent Order That Binds Future Officials

The injunction protects the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers. The opinion expressly includes current and future members and customers and binds successors in office. That makes this more consequential than an ATF director promising to take a friendlier approach. A future administration inherits the court order.

GOA celebrated the formal confirmation on X, describing the protection as permanent. The important point is that the challenged requirements are blocked by a continuing injunction, rather than an agency’s voluntary decision to hold off on enforcement.

BREAKING⁰⁰Solicitor General John Sauer just notified Congress “that @TheJusticeDept [will not] file an appeal” in GOA’s victory against the NFA, Silencer Shop v. ATF.⁰⁰ATF cannot force GOA members to register suppressors or short barrels EVER AGAIN. This is PERMANENT! https://t.co/QlW4uxNXFy pic.twitter.com/46u7EbHSGl

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) October 1, 2026

The order does not automatically protect every American or remove every NFA restriction.

Silencer Shop’s relief includes AOWs; Jensen’s does not. Both plaintiff groups won relief from the challenged NFA making and advance-approval requirements, while the Jensen plaintiffs also secured relief from two additional provisions governing firearm identification and possession of firearms without the required serial number. Machine guns, destructive devices, and the special occupational tax for NFA importers, manufacturers, and dealers remain outside this relief.

Those limits identify the work still ahead. They are no reason to minimize what gun owners have won. Regaining rights is always more difficult than losing them. This should be seen as a massive victory for the Second Amendment and gun owners.

States Seek Answers While ATF Prepares Guidance

The October 1 DOJ motion describes a clarification request from nine plaintiff states. They ask whether the injunction covers all relevant transfers within plaintiff states and whether ATF must take steps to notify or identify protected people.

DOJ requested a ten-day extension of its October 2 response deadline, citing the no-appeal decision and pending ATF guidance. The department argues that guidance could inform the dispute and potentially resolve some questions without further court action.

According to DOJ, the states oppose the extension because delay would prejudice their residents. DOJ disputes that urgency, pointing to the states’ own delay in seeking clarification.

The motion requests more time. It does not grant broader protection or establish that every resident of a plaintiff state is covered.

Meanwhile, gun owners and dealers still need practical answers. AmmoLand’s September briefing report described pending guidance on short-barreled firearm transfers and interstate travel. ATF Director Robert Cekada said he expected it within weeks.

Separate Gun Control Act requirements still complicate commercial SBR and SBS transfers. State restrictions also remain relevant. Sauer’s letter does not resolve those issues.

DOJ’s decision ends the uncertainty over whether it intends to appeal this judgment. It should also remove any excuse for leaving protected gun owners and dealers guessing about implementation.

ATF owes them clear instructions. Congress owes Americans the removal of the remaining restrictions. The right to keep and bear arms should not depend on a federal registry, an arbitrary barrel measurement, or permission from the next administration.

Related: FFL Direct: ATF Built a Real-Time Tap on Gun-Buyer Records

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

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

Gun Rights Groups Ask Supreme Court to End Lifetime Gun Bans for Nonviolent Felons

NRA, FPC and SAF are asking the Supreme Court to hear Joseph Johnson’s challenge to a lifetime federal gun ban stemming from a nonviolent marijuana-cultivation conviction. iStock-1249406015

Joseph Frederick Johnson has never been convicted of a violent offense. According to Firearms Policy Coalition, his sole predicate conviction is a 2015 state marijuana-cultivation offense. Yet federal law permanently bars him from possessing firearms or ammunition.

Now the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear his challenge, and confront whether a nonviolent conviction can justify stripping a peaceable American of his Second Amendment rights for life.

The organizations filed an amicus brief dated October 1 in Johnson v. United States, No. 26-270. Their argument goes directly to the Constitution’s original meaning: America’s historical tradition supports disarming dangerous people, they contend, but does not support permanently disarming peaceable people simply because an offense carries a felony label.

A Nonviolent Conviction Becomes a Lifetime Gun Prohibition

Johnson’s case challenges the application of 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1), the federal prohibition commonly called the felon-in-possession law.

According to FPC’s announcement, the Tenth Circuit rejected Johnson’s Second Amendment challenge because its precedent categorically bars as-applied challenges to that prohibition, even when the underlying offense was nonviolent.
An as-applied challenge asks whether a law is constitutional when enforced against a particular person. Johnson is seeking that individual constitutional review. The organizations argue that courts cannot shut the door on such challenges by treating every felony conviction as sufficient grounds for permanent disarmament.

“The government does not get to turn a decade-old marijuana conviction into a lifetime ban on exercising a constitutionally protected right. We have been fighting this immoral disarmament scheme for years—in our research, scholarship, and cases across the country. FPC and our Grassroots Army will continue to Fight Forward until we end this unconstitutional and immoral lifetime gun ban,” FPC President Brandon Combs said in a release.

That is the civil-rights question at the center of this case. The Second Amendment protects a fundamental right. The government should have to justify taking it away rather than relying on a criminal classification as the entire constitutional argument.

“Presumptively Lawful” Does Not End the Inquiry

The brief addresses language gun owners have encountered repeatedly since District of Columbia v. Heller: the Court’s description of longstanding felon-possession prohibitions as “presumptively lawful.”

NRA, FPC, and SAF argue that the Tenth Circuit has effectively converted that presumption into a conclusive rule, preventing people like Johnson from challenging the prohibition’s application to them.

Their position is that New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen requires the government to demonstrate that firearm restrictions fit the Nation’s historical tradition. A reference to a presumptively lawful restriction, they argue, does not eliminate that requirement.

“Heller’s ‘presumptively lawful’ line was never a blank check for a lifetime ban on every peaceable American with a felony on his record,” SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros said in a press release. “Historically, we disarmed dangerous people. We did not strip the Second Amendment right from those who broke the law without violence and then went back to living as ordinary, peaceable citizens. A permanent ban with no path to restoration is simply not how our tradition worked.”

The organizations ask the Supreme Court to clarify that the historical justification for felon-disarmament laws is the tradition of disarming dangerous people. They contend that justification does not extend to permanently disarming peaceable nonviolent offenders.

The Founding-Era Evidence: Offenders Still Had Arms

The brief’s most consequential historical argument concerns what happened after people completed their criminal sentences.

According to the organizations, colonial and Founding-era militia laws did not exempt eligible men from service because of prior incarceration or crimes committed. Those men remained subject to requirements to keep and bear arms.
That evidence challenges the premise that a criminal conviction automatically placed someone outside the armed citizenry forever.

The brief also identifies a 1786 Massachusetts law governing estate sales to recover money stolen by corrupt tax collectors and sheriffs. Arms were protected from those sales. It cites additional laws protecting arms from collection for debts and taxes, including the federal Uniform Militia Act of 1792.

The organizations offer these laws as evidence that wrongdoing did not automatically extinguish a person’s ability to possess arms.

Another example involves Shays’s Rebellion. Massachusetts initially conditioned pardons for participants on surrendering their arms and waiting three years to reclaim them. According to the brief, they were ultimately permitted to reclaim their arms within four months.

Even that episode involving armed rebellion, the organizations’ historical account shows, did not produce the permanent disarmament Johnson faces over a nonviolent conviction.

Peaceable Americans Have Second Amendment Rights

The brief distinguishes being peaceable from having never broken a law. A person can commit a nonviolent crime without demonstrating a propensity for violence, the organizations argue.

Their historical survey also examines discriminatory colonial laws and wartime disarmament of loyalists. The brief rejects discriminatory laws as valid constitutional analogues and cautions that desperate wartime measures were not models for constitutional rights in peacetime.

The filing asks the Supreme Court to grant review. It is an argument for hearing and deciding Johnson’s challenge, rather than a ruling restoring his rights.

For gun owners, the stakes reach beyond one marijuana conviction. Allowing the government to permanently extinguish Second Amendment rights through a felony label gives that label enormous power over a fundamental liberty.

The Supreme Court should hear Johnson’s case and require the government to defend that power against the Constitution and the historical record. A peaceable American’s right to keep and bear arms deserves a constitutional examination—not automatic rejection.

Related: After Hemani, Bruen’s History and Tradition Test Has a New Target

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/7XlQx2Z
via IFTTT

DOJ Expands San Jose Lawsuit to Challenge Mandatory Gun Insurance

DOJ’s September 29 amended complaint challenges San Jose’s mandatory gun insurance, $1,591 carry-permit fee and psychological testing as violations of the Second Amendment. iStock.com/[Robert Helebrant]

The Justice Department has expanded its lawsuit against San Jose to challenge the city’s mandatory gun-owner liability insurance, asking a federal court to reconsider the reasoning that previously upheld the requirement.

The September 29 first amended complaint adds an express attack on the insurance mandate to DOJ’s challenge against San Jose’s $1,591 concealed-carry application fee and mandatory psychological testing. The federal government argues that enforcing these restrictions constitutes a pattern or practice of violating Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

San Jose has attached a recurring financial obligation to keeping a firearm. DOJ is now asking the court to subject that obligation to the constitutional scrutiny the city’s gun owners were previously denied.

Gun rights are civil rights. A city cannot escape the Second Amendment by calling its infringement an insurance requirement.

DOJ Challenges San Jose’s Gun Insurance Mandate

According to the amended complaint, San Jose requires firearm owners or possessors to maintain insurance covering losses from accidental firearm use, including death, injury and property damage. The complaint also identifies an ordinance requiring an annual “Gun Harm Reduction Fee” payable to a designated nonprofit organization.

That expands the practical stakes beyond people applying for concealed-carry permits. The insurance requirement burdens keeping and possessing firearms, bringing gun owners who simply want to keep arms for lawful purposes into the dispute.

AmmoLand reported on FPC’s challenge to San Jose’s insurance and fee scheme in 2022.

Now the United States is expressly challenging the insurance requirement through federal civil-rights enforcement. The amended complaint does not specify the annual nonprofit fee’s amount or establish that the city is currently collecting it. Its developed historical argument focuses on the insurance mandate, alongside the carry-permit fee and psychological testing.

DOJ Says the Earlier Insurance Ruling Cannot Stand Under Wolford

The filing’s most consequential argument concerns the reasoning used to uphold San Jose’s insurance requirement in earlier litigation.

DOJ identifies a 2023 district court decision that held the insurance mandate did not implicate the Second Amendment’s plain text. The department argues that the Supreme Court’s subsequent decision in Wolford v. Lopez abrogated that holding.

“Plaintiff brings this action to have the Court reconsider its holding,” the amended complaint states.

DOJ’s argument follows the text-and-history framework: the restrictions apply to members of “the people,” concern protected arms and burden keeping or bearing those arms. The department, therefore, argues that they are presumptively unconstitutional and that San Jose must establish a historical justification.

That matters because excluding the insurance mandate from the Amendment’s text lets the government avoid explaining how its financial condition fits the historical understanding of the right.

The Second Amendment protects a pre-existing right. San Jose does not get to redefine that right as something residents may exercise only after purchasing coverage acceptable to the government.

If the court maintains its earlier position, DOJ says it seeks further appellate review. This amended complaint presents that argument; it is not a new ruling overturning the previous decision.

Historical Surety Laws Do Not Justify Continuing Insurance

DOJ also rejects historical surety laws as an analogue for San Jose’s mandate. The complaint contrasts the limited duration of historical surety obligations with the city’s requirement to maintain liability insurance continually. DOJ argues that restrictions tied to a judicial determination of dangerousness were lifted when that determination was no longer in effect.

A limited obligation arising from an individualized threat does not establish a tradition of requiring peaceable gun owners to maintain insurance as a condition of possessing arms.

The DOJ makes a related argument against San Jose’s mandatory psychological examinations. Historical restrictions on people shown to have mental illness, DOJ argues, do not justify preemptively screening every applicant for vague psychological conditions.

According to the complaint, the psychological-testing requirement comes from SJPD policy. California law does not require it, and it is not contained in San Jose’s municipal code. Applicants pay for the evaluation themselves.

DOJ further argues that the city imposes and assesses the requirement without a court reviewing its determination that an applicant is unfit.

The $1,591 Carry Fee Remains Under Attack

AmmoLand’s original report covered DOJ’s challenge to San Jose’s $1,591 carry-permit application fee. That challenge remains in the amended complaint.  A first-time applicant pays $318 initially and $1,273 when the license is issued.

Fingerprinting, training and psychological testing require additional payments.

DOJ alleges that the municipal fee makes exercising the right impractical for middle-class citizens and impossible for low-income citizens. The department also says the resolution establishing the fee does not attempt to justify its cost.

The constitutional problem is plain: self-defense cannot become a privilege reserved for people who can afford the government’s price.

Gun Rights Enforcement Through Federal Civil-Rights Law

DOJ brings the case under 34 U.S.C. §12601, alleging a pattern or practice of law-enforcement conduct that deprives people of constitutional rights. AmmoLand has covered the same civil-rights approach in DOJ’s lawsuit against Montgomery County’s carry restrictions.

The amended complaint names the City of San Jose as the sole defendant and describes SJPD’s role in administering and enforcing the challenged requirements. DOJ seeks declaratory relief, a permanent injunction and corrective policies and systems.

The case is United States v. City of San Jose, No. 5:26-cv-10508-PCP, in the Northern District of California. This filing grants no injunction and strikes down no requirement.

But the federal government’s position is clear: putting financial and psychological conditions on a constitutional right can constitute a civil-rights violation. San Jose’s gun owners should not have to purchase the city’s permission to exercise a right they already possess.

Related: NRA, SAF Ask Supreme Court to Stop Blaming Gun Ads for a Criminal Shooting

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/fkL5T9g
via IFTTT