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

Federal Judge Blocks Connecticut’s Glock Ban Before It Takes Effect

A federal judge granted a preliminary injunction against Connecticut’s “convertible pistol” sales ban on September 30, 2026. The lawsuits remain pending. IMG Duncan Johnson

U.S. District Judge Kari A. Dooley of the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut granted a preliminary injunction blocking Connecticut from enforcing its new “convertible pistol” ban the day before the law was set to take effect.

The court considered two cases: Glock, Inc. v. Griffin and National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Griffin. Both cases challenged House Bill 5043 (Public Act 26-41), signed May 26, 2026, which expanded Connecticut’s machine-gun definition to include a “convertible pistol” fitted with a “pistol converter.” A convertible pistol is a semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be converted by hand or with a common household tool. Hammer-fired pistols and pistols with a molded shield over the trigger bar are excluded. Selling, distributing, transporting, importing, or offering such a pistol in Connecticut would have been a Class D felony.

In the first case, Glock sued the Chief State’s Attorney, the state’s attorneys for each judicial district, and DESPP Commissioner Ronnell A. Higgins. In the second case, NSSF, Shadow Systems, and Blue Trail Range sued the same defendants except Higgins.

Both cases claim that the new law violates the Second Amendment under Bruen and Heller. Heller said firearms in common use cannot be banned. Glocks are the most common style of handgun in the country. The plaintiffs argue that the law violates Supreme Court precedent.

They also claimed that the law could not survive a Bruen analysis. The first step of a Bruen analysis is whether the conduct is protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. In Wolford v. Lopez, the Supreme Court said the only two questions at this step are whether the plaintiffs are members of “the people” and whether the arm is bearable. Both are clearly true, so the state conceded on these points. Because of this reasoning, the conduct is presumptively protected, and the burden shifts to the state to prove, using historical analogues, that the law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

In this step, the “how and why” matter. The historical law’s goal must be similar. This is why courts usually reject Founding-era gunpowder laws.

The state offered two historical analogues: Founding-era “proving” and inspection laws (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts) and the tradition of restricting machine guns. Dooley rejected that combination on this record. Proving laws were meant to ensure a gun was safe before sale, not to block later criminal conversion. Unconverted cruciform-trigger handguns are popular self-defense arms. Machine gun conversion devices (MCDs) and already-converted guns are already illegal. The court also noted the state’s inability to explain why a gun made September 30 needs no extra regulation, but the same gun made October 1 is too dangerous to sell.

Judge Dooley also found that the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable harm. This is damage that cannot be remedied by monetary means. Pre-October 1 inventory can still be sold, but that does not fix lost law-enforcement customers (who are not exempted), lost goodwill, broken contracts, advertising restrictions, and the Second Amendment injury to Connecticut residents. Blue Trail Range said it had about $25,000 of affected pistols, expected to sell through them by the end of October, and had already stopped ordering more.

The plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success on the Second Amendment claim, irreparable harm, and that the remaining Winter factors favor an injunction. The motions are granted. A separate implementing order will follow.

Dooley emphasized that this is on a compressed record and could change after fuller development. She did not decide whether Glock Slimline or Series VI models fall outside the statute; defense counsel said that review was underway.

The court addressed only the Second Amendment claim, not the plaintiffs’ other constitutional theories. Those other theories will be addressed during the merits arguments, because the plaintiffs needed to succeed on only one theory for the preliminary injunction to issue. The state is expected to appeal and seek a stay.

---

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/mwGCE7k
via IFTTT

Gun Prohibtionist’s Power Grab Exploits Rare Airgun Tragedy for Political Points

Garrett’s Law would bring certain airguns under the federal Gun Control Act, expanding ATF’s regulatory reach. iStock-1205088959

“Modern airguns can be powerful enough to cause serious injury or death, yet face far fewer safeguards than traditional firearms simply because they use compressed air instead of gunpowder,”  a September 25 press release by Democrat Rep. Kevin Mullin argues. “To close this dangerous gap[he] introduced Garrett’s Law today after one of his constituents lost her son to suicide involving a high-powered airgun.”

“Garrett’s Law… would designate lethal airguns as firearms under the purview of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,” the release explains. “This would ensure that they receive the same common-sense gun safety protections as traditional firearms, such as background check and serialization requirements.”

The effort has the backing of GIFFORDS, which advocates to “treat non-powder guns like the potentially lethal weapons they are,” and of March for Our Lives.

The bill proposes to amend Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, to include “any lethal air gun,” defined as:

“[A]ny weapon (other than a weapon that exclusively expels a paint-filled pellet) that expels a pellet through the force of air or gas pressure if that projectile can be one of the following calibers and feet per second, or if the weapon is otherwise designated as a lethal air gun by the Attorney General, through rulemaking, as capable of causing death:  (A) A .177 caliber pellet expelled at a muzzle velocity of not less than 800 feet per second. (B) A .22 caliber pellet expelled at a muzzle velocity of not less than 500 feet per second. (C) A .25 caliber pellet expelled at a muzzle velocity of not less than 450 feet per second. (D) Any metallic pellet above .25 caliber.”

That leaves a lot of room for any future Democrat AG to expand things. A simple change that comes to mind would be to make the benchmark “capable of causing injury” (“You’ll shoot your eye out, kid!”), which would bring Daisys and Red Ryders into the fold and could further be exploited to enact bans without “grandfathering.”  Note the Democrat-controlled states of New Jersey and Rhode Island classify non-powder pellet and BB guns as firearms, with attendant controls.

Because he’s in a safe district and can do and say whatever he wants without fear of a Republican taking his seat, what’s prompting Mullin to act on this now is fair to speculate on. By his press release saying, “One of his constituents,” the gun prohibitionist mantra “If it saves one life” comes to mind, which in turn merits determining how severe is the problem to warrant a major change to federal gun laws.

The danger can’t be quantified because there is no database that tracks total air gun fatalities or suicides. What can be gleaned suggests they represent a minute fraction of overall statistics.

From a 2019 National Institutes of Health/National Library of Medicine abstract:

“Presented is a rare case of a modern, high-powered air weapon used in a homicide. A literature search yielded reports of only three previous murders by air weapon in the United States…”

Another NIH study from the same year concludes, “One person each year dies from an air powered weapon injury in the United Kingdom.”

A more recent 2025 article in The Atlantic Journal of Medical Science and Research cites the case of a 50-year-old man who died as a result of multiple air rifle injuries. Autopsy revealed seven pellet wounds, most likely caused by five shots.” That he could just as easily been clubbed is left unsaid.

Preventable tragedies, no doubt, but hardly through legislation to be imposed and enforced on all. Case in point is the man the proposed law is named after, who, per Mullin’s presser, “struggled with mental health during the pandemic and was prohibited from possessing a firearm by law. Yet, sadly, when his condition worsened, Garrett legally purchased a lethal airgun online and used it to take his own life.”

It’s curious how the political left obsesses over suicide when it’s done with a gun, but champions it when other means are used. In fact, there are more state-assisted deaths in lower-population Canada than homicides with firearms in the U.S.

Unsurprisingly, the man’s mother is all in on new restrictions on everyone else while acknowledging “the countless efforts made by his community.” In other words, the self-destructive aberrant behavior her son had manifested from his “late onset psychosis” were known to her and to others for some time, and yet evidently, he had access to all kinds of potentially lethal instruments, not just an air rifle.

A truism is that anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian. After all, the three greatest mass murders in this country were ostensibly committed with box cutters, fertilizer, and matches. How much more does it make sense to restrict those than it does air guns, and yet proposing to do so would rightly be met with well-earned derision for being unworkable, offensive to freedom, and ridiculous.

In his case, it’s a pretty sure thing that perennial gun-grabber Mullin is just doing this as an “In your face!” to gun owners for attention, and for approval from those ignorant enough to vote for him. Fortunately, the GovTrack federal legislation website prognosis says there’s a “1% chance of being enacted,” which means the bill is going nowhere – for now.

Let enough gun owners stay home so that Republicans lose the midterms and lose again in ’28, and that will change.

---

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.

---

from https://ift.tt/bHsWPS6
via IFTTT

SAF Challenges New Jersey Gun Permit Denial Over Protected Speech

SAF argues New Jersey cannot use protected speech and subjective character judgments to deny a firearm purchaser identification card. iStock-1209898812

A New Jersey permit denial raises serious First Amendment concerns. Post-Bruen applicants still deal with subjective standards. The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus in a peculiar denial case.

A New Jersey man who has been twice denied a New Jersey firearm purchaser identification card reapplied a third time. The applicant was denied each time under an illegal subjective standard. The case, In the Matter of the Gun Permit Appeal of A.A.R, was decided in the New Jersey Superior Court in the Appellate Division. A.A.R. has appealed the decision that upheld his denial to the New Jersey Supreme Court. The Second Amendment Foundation has filed an amicus brief in support of A.A.R.’s appeal.

The Law in New Jersey

In order to purchase or possess a long gun in New Jersey, one must have a firearm purchaser identification card. There are some narrow exemptions to that law. One of the disqualifiers in New Jersey law is a subjective one that persists even in the post-Bruen landscape.

An issuing authority may deny the issuance of an FPIC, pistol purchaser’s permit, or permit to carry if they believe the “issuance would not be in the interest of the public health, safety or welfare because the person is found to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a firearm.”

Interpretation of the Law

The court’s opinion noted that they “upheld  the constitutionality of N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5) in M.U.” The case that the court references, M.U., has been sitting on appeal from the appellate at the New Jersey Supreme Court for over three years.

The particulars of M.U. are relevant, as M.U. like A.A.R., had no statutorily defined disqualifiers. However, the issuing authority found him disqualified as a matter of opinion. M.U.’s case is even murkier as it includes an expunged record that the issuing authority essentially ignored.

The court quoted their own case law — ignoring the fact that M.U. has been languishing at New Jersey’s highest court without relief — saying that they found “the historical record showed ‘legislatures traditionally imposed status-based restrictions’ that were ‘not  limited  to  individuals  who demonstrated a propensity for violence’ but ‘also applied to entire categories of people due to the perceived threat they posed to an orderly society.’”

Denial Criteria

According to the opinion, some of A.A.R.’s denial criteria were matters of when he was a minor. There were alleged mental health issues. “Potentially almost causing a fire” in his home being one. And having received some level of care for the alleged mental health issues another.

“Freehold Township (Freehold) had denied petitioner’s two previous FPIC applications—one  of  which  was  affirmed  on  appeal to  the  Law  Division; and petitioner’s 3A-3192-24 medical history, including a mental health evaluation; involvement in a domestic dispute; and ‘violent tendencies,’” was noted in the court’s opinion.

Other actions A.A.R. is alleged to have participated in, as an adult, include making remarks online that support white supremacy, misogyny, violence, rape fantaices, use of racial slurs, and more. All allegations. None of which, from all accounts, were criminal.

“Petitioner’s testimony confirmed his 2017 confrontation with his parents, he had authored the Reddit posts, and he had publicly uttered racial slurs and had made statements about raping women,” the opinion said.

Ugly People Aren’t Disqualified

Looking at the opinion, A.A.R. can be accused of being a disgusting and uncouth person. However, there’s nothing illegal about being an “a-hole.” Basically he’s a troll on the internet and was a rebellious/disrespectful kid to his parents. Is there more to the story? Probably. But so far, nothing criminal.

As for any of the mental health allegations, A.A.R. has allegedly received a clean bill of health. According to a letter from a mental health professional he submitted as evidence, a clinical said that he’s “not currently a danger to himself and/or others.” There’s no mention of him being involuntarily committed.

A.A.R. Going at it Alone

A.A.R. has been handling his case pro se. This amicus from the Second Amendment Foundation is likely to help his standing. It’s also likely to help not create more bad law in the Garden State. The 24-page amicus starts off observing some very important and inconvenient facts. They’re inconvenient because just because issuing authorities — or even the public at large — don’t agree with or like them, that does not make them less true.

“The Petitioner in this case has undoubtedly said some reprehensible things,” the brief says. “His racist and sexist views are despicable, and if that speech leads him into social ostracism, perhaps it would be deserved. But from a constitutional perspective, what is more disturbing than anything the Petitioner has said is what the courts below have ruled, which is that speech that is protected by the First Amendment can be grounds to deny someone their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That must not be allowed to stand.”

It’s A.A.R.’s First Amendment right to be “despicable” as well as suffer “social ostracism” from his actions. But, none of that is criminal.

Subjective Permitting Standard in New Jersey

“Bruen is clear: licensing officials may apply narrow, objective, and definite criteria,” SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros said in a statement. “They may not sit in judgment of an applicant’s ‘character’ or ‘temperament.’ If ten other states, including several with some of the strictest gun laws in the country, issued this applicant carry permits, New Jersey’s outlier denial is powerful evidence of the very subjectivity the Supreme Court forbade. Protected speech, even if it is deeply offensive, cannot be converted into a reason to deny a Second Amendment right.”

It’s important to point out that it’s N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5) that has also been used to disproportionately deny Black applicants permits to carry. Preliminary findings saw Black applicants being denied more than double their white counterparts. Further analysis found them to be denied 10 times more — 50 times more in Ocean County. The latest look at the post-Bruen to 2026 numbers found that the rate has leveled off and Black people are denied eight times more than white people.

This “interest of the public health, safety or welfare” standard is responsible for the majority of New Jersey permit-to-carry denials. It’s ensnared more, otherwise law abiding, would-be gun owners than any other disqualifier.

SAF’s Take

“Respecting freedom of speech inherently prohibits retaliation against speech the government disagrees with, even when that speech is socially or politically objectionable,” the Second Amendment Foundation’s release says. “The relevant constitutional question is whether New Jersey may use protected speech to deny the FPIC necessary to exercise one’s Second Amendment rights, on the statutory grounds that doing so is in the interest of public safety. The First and Second Amendment protect against such subjective gatekeeping of fundamental rights.”

What we can glean from both the opinion of the lower court and Second Amendment Foundation’s amicus brief is twofold. Just because the court continues to ignore precedent set in Bruen does not mean it’s right — or good law, because it’s not. And two, just because A.A.R. is a despicable human worthy of having no friends, that does not mean he should have his Second Amendment rights subverted.

---

About John Petrolino

John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer, writer, author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use and NRA certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on twitter at @johnpetrolino, facebook at @thepenpatriot and on instagram @jpetrolinoiii.

---

from https://ift.tt/tMiS5aw
via IFTTT

DOJ Sues Minnesota Over Gun Permit-to-Purchase Laws and Waiting Periods

Armed self-defense cannot wait on a government permission slip. DOJ is challenging Minnesota’s gun purchase-permit system and waiting periods as violations of the Second Amendment. iStock-944927264

On September 24, the Department of Justice took a huge step that could have major repercussions for gun control. The DOJ filed a lawsuit saying Minnesota’s firearm purchase permit and 30-day waiting period are unconstitutional.

Daniel Rosen, the U.S. Attorney General for the District of Minnesota, said:

“We are committed to protecting Minnesotans’ right to purchase firearms and we will not tolerate procedures that are wielded in a way that impairs that right.”

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, said:

“Law-abiding citizens do not need government permission to purchase a firearm, and forcing a citizen who has already passed a background check to wait up to sixty days to obtain a firearm is intolerable under the Constitution.”

The suit is being brought against the state of Minnesota and the twin cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Minnesota’s original purchase permit law was enacted in 1977 but has been modified several times, most recently in 2025.

In 2023, the state expanded its waiting period from seven to 30 days, the same as the time limit for local police or the county sheriff to grant or deny a permit.

According to the DOJ, police in both Minneapolis and St. Paul routinely take more than the 30 days the law allowed and that wait times of up to 60 days are not uncommon.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon commented:

“The Supreme Court held that the home is where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. When a person needs to defend their home, they need to defend it now, not thirty to sixty days from now.”

In June 2015, Carol Bowne, a Berlin, New Jersey hairdresser, was murdered outside her home. The killer was her abusive ex-boyfriend. Ms. Bowne had been granted a restraining order, but the ex-boyfriend violated the order a number of times.

Ms. Bowne had applied for a permit to purchase a gun. Like Minnesota, New Jersey state law allowed 30 days for police to either grant or deny that application. The day Ms. Bowne was murdered, it had been 42 days since she applied.

Minnesota does exempt citizens holding a valid permit to carry licenses. However, only about 8.2% of Minnesota adults have these licenses. This leaves roughly 4.2 million Minnesota adults vulnerable to police in two very blue cities.

The state attorney general’s office issued a statement in response to the filing:

“Given the recent, shocking, and tragic instances of gun violence in Minnesota, it is astonishing that the Trump administration is devoting its resources to attacking Minnesota’s police departments and the state’s common-sense background check laws. These laws, which Minnesota’s elected representatives passed democratically, are in place to ensure permits to purchase or transfer handguns and assault rifles are issued only to eligible purchasers. It should disturb every single Minnesotan that Donald Trump’s Department of Justice is trying to make Minnesota less safe.”

Perhaps someone should tell Keith Ellis, Minnesota’s Attorney General, about Carol Bowne.

As the old saying goes, it’s better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it. And a right delayed is a right denied.

The most significant impact of the DOJ lawsuit is that it challenges the entire constitutionality of requiring a state-issued permit to purchase or possess a firearm. Such a requirement flies straight into the face of the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment protects a preexisting right not only to self-defense but to armed self-defense.

With the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791 and the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, neither the federal government nor a state government has the power to interfere with an individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. If the citizen subsequently misuses or abuses the right, the federal, state, and local governments have the necessary power to to bring the citizen to justice. That’s their job, not issuing permission slips.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court fumbled the ball in NYSRPA v. Bruen. While the main part of Justice Clarence Thomas’ majority opinion was wonderful news for supporters of our civil rights, the first line of Footnote 9 was a setback.

Thomas’ failure to specify the ruling applied only to licenses to carry a handgun allowed a number of states to claim the court was blessing any type of gun permit.

“To be clear, nothing in our analysis should be interpreted to suggest the unconstitutionality of the 43 States’ “shall-issue” licensing regimes, under which “a general desire for self-defense is sufficient to obtain a [permit].”

“That said, because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”

The DOJ can expect significant opposition; they have fired the first volley against a government that feels entitled to violate our rights by making it difficult, bordering on impossible, to exercise them in the way the Founders envisioned.

Minnesota is in the Eighth Judicial Circuit, which has a mixed record on Second Amendment issues. We could wish it were in the Fifth Circuit, but we can be glad it wasn’t in the Seventh Circuit. Or the Ninth.

---

About Bill Cawthon

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

---

from https://ift.tt/TdYUPn9
via IFTTT