DOJ Divided Over Appealing Court Ruling That Guts Key NFA Provisions

The Department of Justice is weighing whether to appeal a federal ruling blocking enforcement of key NFA provisions against covered plaintiffs, members, and customers. IMG Tim Potter

With the time for the government to ask for a stay to be extended in Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rapidly running out, a significant internal debate is unfolding inside the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) over whether to appeal a ruling that knocked down key provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

Last week, a Texas federal district court judge struck down NFA regulations covering short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), suppressors, and any other weapons (AOWs). The court reached this conclusion after Congress lowered the long-standing $200 tax stamp fee to $0. Because the NFA has long been justified as a tax statute, a characterization repeatedly affirmed by the United States Supreme Court, and because a tax must serve a genuine revenue-generating purpose, the court held that the challenged regulations lost their constitutional foundation once the fee was eliminated.

Without a valid tax, the registration, approval, and transfer requirements that have defined the NFA for nearly a century could no longer stand.

The court issued a permanent injunction against the regulations, effectively gutting large portions of the NFA as applied to the covered items. To give the federal government an opportunity to seek emergency relief, the judge stayed the injunction for seven days and indicated openness to a longer stay pending appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. That seven-day window expires on August 12.

Many observers expected the DOJ to move quickly for an extended stay. It has not. AmmoLand News reached out to sources inside the department to understand the delay and the internal discussions taking place.

According to those sources—individuals with intimate knowledge of the proceedings whose accounts have been independently corroborated by others—two distinct camps have formed within the DOJ.

The first group consists largely of career employees. They maintain that the Department’s institutional duty is to defend federal statutes against legal challenge. In their view, the proper response to an adverse district court ruling is to appeal and to seek a stay so that the law remains in effect while higher courts review the decision. This faction wants the government to fight the case to the end.

The second group takes a different position. These officials argue that the DOJ has no obligation to defend a law once it has been found unconstitutional on solid legal grounds. They contend that continuing to litigate in defense of provisions that no longer generate revenue and that rest on a now-invalid tax theory would be both unnecessary and contrary to the Department’s higher duty to the Constitution. If the decision were theirs alone, they would decline to appeal.

While United States Attorney General Todd Blanche would normally be expected to make the final call on whether to seek a stay and pursue an appeal, sources indicate the matter has drawn direct attention from the White House. That involvement does not automatically mean the White House will dictate the outcome, but it does signal that this is not a routine litigation decision. The DOJ typically operates with considerable independence from White House input on the day-to-day handling of cases. The fact that the White House is closely monitoring the internal debate underscores the political and legal sensitivity of the issue.

AmmoLand News also contacted sources familiar with White House discussions. Those sources confirmed that the administration is watching the DOJ deliberations carefully. They described intense pressure from gun rights organizations and the broader gun-owning public urging the White House to block any request for an extended stay or an appeal.

Many in the firearms community see the district court’s ruling as a rare and significant opportunity to roll back long-standing NFA restrictions without waiting for further legislative action.

If the stay is not extended, the ATF will be forced to issue guidance to federal firearms licensees (FFLs) on how to handle transfers and manufacturing of the newly unrestricted items. Although the permanent injunction formally applies only to the named plaintiffs and to current and future members of the plaintiff organizations, enforcement of the challenged NFA provisions is expected to become practically impossible. The government does not have access to the membership rolls of those organizations, making it difficult to determine who is covered by the injunction and who is not. In practice, that uncertainty is likely to produce a de facto nationwide effect even if the formal geographic or party scope of the order remains limited.

The broader implications are substantial. For decades, the NFA’s tax-and-registration regime has imposed significant barriers on the ownership and transfer of suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and AOWs. The combination of a successful legal challenge grounded in the tax nature of the statute and a congressional decision to zero out the stamp fee has created an opening that gun owners have sought for generations. Whether that opening remains open now depends on the DOJ’s next move.

Thanks to the lawsuits, gun owners stand closer than they have in living memory to dismantling major portions of the NFA. The remaining question is whether the Department of Justice will continue to defend the law in the courts or whether it will accept the district court’s judgment and allow those rights to return to the people.

---

About John Crump

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

---

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

Incomplete Garland Tommy Gun FOIA Response Leaves Basic Questions Unanswered

Then-FBI Director Christopher Wray presents outgoing Attorney General Merrick Garland with a “Tommy Gun” during Garland’s January 2025 farewell ceremony. FBI records show it was a replica costing $268.16 with shipping. iStock-1617047969

“The FBI has completed its review of records subject to the Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) that are responsive to your request,” a July 31 letter to attorney Stephen Stemnboulieh from Christina Driver, Acting Section Chief of the FBI’s  Record/Information Dissemination Section on the subject of “Christopher Wray’s Gift to Attorney General Garland” begins. “21 pages were reviewed and 21 pages are being released.”

It’s a response to a request submitted in January 2025 by Stamboulieh on my behalf in an attempt to learn more about a “Tommy Gun” presented by then FBI Director Christopher Wray to outgoing Attorney General Merrick Garland, a gift that seemed more than a bit hypocritical to gun owners.

The first question some had: Is it real?

“Went over the video.  Took a screen shot of the ‘Tommy gun’,” firearms designed and president of Historic Arms, LLC, Len Savage replied to my inquiry. “Note the red muzzle indicating a replica… Could just be a red plug on real gun, but I doubt it. Most resin and metal replicas all come with this plugged muzzle.

My FOIA request asked for:

1. All records regarding procurement of the “tommy gun,” including all transfer documentation and costs, or, if applicable, purchase records, including compliance with bidding requirements, and showing who authorized and paid for the purchase, and the total amount paid;
2. All records establishing compliance with Justice Management Division’s Departmental Ethics Office’s “Gifts and Entertainment” policy;
3. All records pertaining to that specific “tommy gun”;
4. Records regarding Attorney General Garland’s last date of employment; and
5. If applicable, records of compliance with all regulations for transferring functional, deactivated or replica machineguns, including communications with and approvals by the Washington, DC Metropolitan Police Department.

What was returned a year-and-a-half later was a lot of boilerplate about rules, exemptions, how to file disputes, and mostly irrelevant ceremony agenda, schedule, and speaker information, interspersed with some responsive procurement documentation. It showed the “Tommy Gun” was, in fact, a replica that came with a stand, and a total cost with shipping of $268.16, from Replica Weaponry. The order confirmation has an interesting footnote that relates directly to a point raised in the 2025 AmmoLand article:

NOTE: Replica and Blank Firing Guns may be restricted in some states and municipalities. ORDERS CONTAINING RESTRICTED ITEMS WILL NOT SHIP.

Quoting International Military Antiques, my 2025 article noted:

New made replica guns cannot be shipped to WASHINGTON DC, MA, CT, WI, NYC, (in NY, CA & KS must be used for Theatrical Purposes Only) these locations either restrict or prohibit commerce in imitation firearms that are replicas of modern firearms. We can only ship modern replica firearms to these jurisdictions under certain circumstances.

May we assume those circumstances to get the replica to DOJ HQ include “Only Ones” exemptions? The FOIA response doesn’t say.

“With stonewalling and refusals being a hallmark of the last administration, it will be interesting to see what the FBI/DOJ position will be under a Pam Bondi/Kash Patel administration,” I noted at the time Stamboulieh filed the request. “The more things change, the more they stay the same” comes to mind.

With Stamboulieh leaving private practice to work for DOJ, there’s just not enough further information to be gained to make it  worth it to me to arrange for another attorney to pursue this matter any further. In the grand scheme of things, there are more important battles to fight. It is, however, a pretty good indicator that no matter who is running things, the bureaucratic prerogative will always be to protect the institution.

The FOIA response is embedded below.

---

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/7BwOcWN
via IFTTT

LA Sheriff Settles Carry Rights Lawsuit After Years of Permit Delays

A gun-rights coalition has reached a settlement resolving the remaining claims against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over its concealed carry permitting system. iStock-2196791813

The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners have reached a settlement resolving the remaining claims against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in a major lawsuit challenging California’s obstruction of the right to bear arms.

The agreement in California Rifle & Pistol Association v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department follows LASD’s representation that it is now processing concealed carry weapon applications within the 120-day period required under California law.

The settlement is not yet final. It remains subject to approval by the Los Angeles County Claims Board, according to the Second Amendment Foundation.

“This settlement marks meaningful progress, but our work to secure full recognition of the right to carry—including true interstate reciprocity—continues,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said.

The separate lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against LASD over its carry-permit delays is not resolved by this settlement and remains pending.

A Settlement Built on Real Concessions

SAF, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and several individual plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in December 2023.

The case challenged a collection of barriers California officials erected around the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. Those included LASD’s extreme processing delays, California’s refusal to provide most nonresidents with a way to obtain a carry permit, high licensing costs, psychological examinations, and other subjective requirements.

The settlement resolves the remaining claims against LASD after the department represented that it had brought its processing times into compliance with the state’s 120-day deadline. That is a major change from the delays that helped trigger the litigation.

When the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, some applicants had been waiting approximately 18 months for LASD to act. The federal court concluded that such delays went too far and granted relief to two individual plaintiffs.

The court also ordered California to allow qualified nonresidents who belonged to the plaintiff organizations to apply for California carry permits. California lawmakers later enacted AB 1078, creating a broader nonresident licensing process and largely codifying that part of the court’s injunction.

The case therefore ends with more than a negotiated dismissal. It produced changes that directly affect Californians and visitors seeking to lawfully carry a firearm for self-defense.

The Right Does Not Belong to the Bureaucracy

California officials have spent years treating the Second Amendment as though it were a privilege they may ration through delays, costs, and paperwork.

The Second Amendment protects the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms. It contains no California-residency exception and no bureaucratic-convenience exception. It does not permit a sheriff to suspend the right for a year or longer because the department is understaffed or has failed to build a functional application system.

A permit does not create the right. The right existed before the application was submitted, before the sheriff reviewed it, and before California wrote its licensing statutes.

Hostile jurisdictions learned an obvious lesson after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Once officials could no longer demand that applicants prove some special “good cause” to carry a handgun, they looked for other ways to slow the process.

A licensing system may say “shall issue” on paper while operating as “shall wait” in practice.

Years-long delays accomplish much the same thing as an outright denial. Citizens who need to defend themselves today receive no protection from a permit that might arrive two years from now.

The Supreme Court anticipated that problem in Bruen, warning that supposedly objective licensing systems could still face constitutional challenges when lengthy processing times or exorbitant fees prevent ordinary citizens from exercising the right to public carry.

That warning was not an invitation for California officials to test exactly how long they could make people wait.

More Than One Lawsuit Pressured LASD

The settlement also comes amid federal scrutiny of LASD’s carry-licensing operation.

The Justice Department sued the department in September 2025, accusing it of using administrative delay to deny citizens their Second Amendment rights. According to the federal complaint, LASD received 3,982 new carry applications between January 2024 and March 2025 but issued only two permits from that group during the period examined.

Applicants allegedly waited an average of 281 days merely for LASD to begin processing their applications. Some reportedly waited as long as 1,030 days—nearly three years.

LASD attributed its backlog to staffing shortages and its transition from a paper-based process to an online system. Those explanations may describe how the failure occurred, but they do not excuse it. The government cannot avoid its constitutional obligations by pointing to problems of its own making.

The DOJ case remains active despite SAF’s settlement, leaving additional pressure on the department to maintain its claimed compliance.

Progress, Not Full Reciprocity

The settlement should not be mistaken for California recognizing carry permits issued by other states.

Nonresidents now have a path to apply for a California permit, but they must still submit to California’s licensing process. That is a meaningful improvement over excluding nonresidents altogether, but it falls short of true interstate reciprocity.

Likewise, forcing LASD to act within 120 days is better than allowing applications to collect dust for 18 months or three years. Four months, however, should not be treated as the constitutional gold standard for exercising an enumerated right.

This settlement is nevertheless a significant conclusion to a lawsuit that forced one of the country’s most anti-gun jurisdictions to change its conduct. LASD says it is finally processing applications within the law. California now allows qualified nonresidents to apply. Other statutory barriers were changed while the case was pending.

Those results were not offered voluntarily. Gun owners had to sue for them.

SAF and its partners say they will continue monitoring the situation to ensure LASD does not return to its old practices. That vigilance is necessary because California’s respect for the Second Amendment has too often lasted only as long as an injunction, settlement, or federal lawsuit remained hanging over the state.

The Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” After years of delay and litigation, Los Angeles County is finally being made to act like those words mean something.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

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

School Official Says “Anything Above Zero” Is Reasonable Suspicion in Gun-Owner Truck Search

Jack Harrington argues that school officials searched his truck without reasonable suspicion or voluntary consent after learning he lawfully possessed a handgun away from campus. The search found no firearm. iStock-1445552933

A New Hampshire school administrator testified that anything “above zero”—even a one-percent possibility—could amount to reasonable suspicion to search a student’s vehicle for a firearm, according to a new federal court filing.

That admission is now at the center of Jack Harrington’s reply supporting summary judgment in Harrington v. Crawford, a Second Amendment Foundation lawsuit against Hillsboro-Deering school officials. Administrators searched Harrington’s truck after learning that the then-18-year-old student had lawfully possessed a handgun away from campus. They found no firearm.

AmmoLand previously reported that the dispute began with Harrington discussing an off-campus traffic stop during which his handgun had been in his glovebox. An assistant coach overheard part of that conversation and later passed it along. By the time the account reached the administrators who ordered the April 24, 2025, search, Harrington argues, it contained no information connecting the handgun to school property.

“Anything Above Zero” Is Not Reasonable Suspicion

In the reply filed August 5, Harrington says the defendants still cannot identify a fact known to the decision-makers showing that he possessed a gun at school, violated the law, or broke school policy.

The filing instead points to Assistant Principal Brian McGinn’s deposition testimony. Asked whether “anything above zero” constituted reasonable suspicion, McGinn answered yes. He also agreed that a one-percent chance would suffice. Principal James O’Rourke reportedly admitted that his claimed suspicion was based on “speculation or guess” and that the timing of the earlier traffic stop “wouldn’t have mattered.”

If the school’s theory is accepted, any student known to hunt, compete, visit a range, or come from a gun-owning household could be placed under permanent suspicion. Lawful exercise of the Second Amendment would become the government’s excuse to disregard the Fourth.

“The school’s knowledge that Jack was a lawful gun owner outside of school did not justify their search of his truck,” SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack said in an August 6 statement. “They had no information to indicate he had ever brought the gun to school or had done anything illegal or against school policy whatsoever.”

Five Refusals Do Not Become Consent

The defendants also argue that Harrington consented. Their own testimony, as presented in the reply, makes that defense difficult to square with the facts.

School officials allegedly decided to conduct the search before Harrington was removed from class. A uniformed, visibly armed police officer stood near the only door of the small office. Harrington was not told he could leave or refuse. He reportedly rejected the search four or five times, while his parents also refused consent over the phone.

O’Rourke testified that officials presented the search as something that was going to happen and merely explained why. McGinn testified that refusing consent meant “automatic suspension.” After officials continued pressing him, Harrington asked whether they only needed to inspect the glovebox before he could return to class.

The defendants point to his eventual “okay.” Harrington calls it submission to asserted authority, not voluntary consent.

“Administrators ignored repeated insistent refusals by Jack to provide consent and now rest their hat on the fact that after telling him the search was going to happen regardless, he replied ‘okay,’” Sack said. “That is not consent in the eyes of the law.”

The Second Amendment Does Not Cancel the Fourth

Public-school searches ordinarily operate under the reduced reasonable-suspicion standard recognized in New Jersey v. T.L.O. Harrington argues that probable cause should apply here because the police officer was enlisted before he was questioned and was present to take custody of any weapon and pursue possible criminal “next steps.” The Supreme Court left that precise law-enforcement question open in T.L.O.

The reply maintains that the search fails under either standard. The defendants do not claim they had probable cause, and “anything above zero” cannot satisfy reasonable suspicion.

“Being perceived as a lawful gun owner does not place you in a class of second-class citizens who are subject to search at any time,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said. “These school officials overstepped their authority here.”

School safety does not create a blank check to discard the Bill of Rights. Government must possess facts indicating wrongdoing before it searches a citizen’s property. It cannot use the exercise of one enumerated right as evidence justifying the invasion of another.

The Second Amendment does not erase the Fourth, and lawful gun ownership is not a perpetual search warrant. The court has not yet ruled on Harrington’s summary-judgment motion.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/M5uOE6t
via IFTTT

Federal Judge Blocks ATF Enforcement of NFA Registry After Tax Drops to $0

A federal court has blocked ATF from enforcing major NFA registration provisions against the plaintiffs after Congress reduced the tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms to zero. IMG Duncan Johnson, AmmoLand

A federal judge has permanently enjoined the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)from enforcing major registration and transfer requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934 against a broad coalition of plaintiffs after Congress zeroed out the longstanding $200 tax on short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and “any other weapons.”

In Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled that the challenged regulatory scheme is unconstitutional because it no longer functions as a revenue measure under the Taxing Clause—the sole constitutional foundation Congress invoked when it passed the NFA more than ninety years ago.

The National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934 (NFA) purely as a tax statute. Congress imposed a $200 making and transfer tax on certain firearms and devices—short-barreled shotguns (SBS), short-barreled rifles (SBR), silencers, and any other weapons (AOWs)—and layered on extensive administrative requirements: Form 1 and Form 4 applications, fingerprints, photographs, local law-enforcement notification, and entry into the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. Machine guns and destructive devices remained subject to the same $200 tax. The stated purpose was to raise revenue while simultaneously constricting the market for these items through the heavy tax and regulatory burden.

Congress Eliminated the NFA Tax but Left the Registry

That tax framework changed with the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, signed into law on July 4, 2025. Effective January 1, 2026, the legislation set the transfer and making taxes for SBS, SBR, silencers, and AOWs at zero dollars. Machine guns and destructive devices continue to carry the $200 tax. Once the revenue justification disappeared, Silencer Shop Foundation and a large group of co-plaintiffs filed suit. They argued that the registration, application, and approval requirements that had been justified solely as tax-enforcement mechanisms could no longer stand.

The plaintiffs include Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, B&T USA, LLC, Palmetto State Armory, LLC, SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, and fifteen states, as well as the Silencer Shop Foundation itself.

The government attempted to salvage the regulations by pointing to the still-existing special occupational tax paid by manufacturers, importers, and dealers. Officials claimed the remaining regulatory apparatus remained “necessary and proper” to the collection of that occupational tax. Judge Hendrix rejected the argument. He found the recharacterization neither “plainly adapted” nor “proper” under the Necessary and Proper Clause. The court refused to allow the agency to rewrite the constitutional basis of a statute after Congress had removed its original revenue foundation.

Judge Rejects Government’s Commerce Clause Argument

The ATF and Department of Justice also invoked the Commerce Clause. Judge Hendrix rejected that claim as well. He emphasized that Congress never relied on the Commerce Clause when it enacted the NFA. The statute’s text, structure, and placement in Title 26 of the United States Code—the Internal Revenue Code—demonstrate that it was conceived and passed exclusively as a tax measure. Unlike the Gun Control Act of 1968, which contains explicit jurisdictional hooks for interstate commerce, the NFA contains none. The court held that judges may not retroactively recharacterize a statute under a power Congress never exercised. Earlier Fifth Circuit dicta suggesting a broader reading were deemed non-binding, pre-dating the Supreme Court’s decisions in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, and inconsistent with earlier circuit precedent.

Notably, the plaintiffs abandoned their Second Amendment claims after prevailing on the enumerated powers argument. With the court’s agreement, Judge Hendrix exercised judicial restraint and declined to reach the Second Amendment issues. The ruling, therefore, rests solely on the absence of a valid taxing power once the tax itself was eliminated, leaving any constitutional challenge under the Second Amendment for another day and another case.

Who Is Protected by the NFA Injunction?

The permanent injunction bars the ATF, the Department of Justice, Acting Attorney General Blanche, ATF Director Cekada, and anyone acting in concert with them from enforcing the challenged provisions—specifically 26 U.S.C. §§ 5812(a)–(b), 5822, 5841(a)–(c) and (e), 5842(b), 5861(b)–(f) and (i), and the related regulations—against the plaintiffs, their agencies and political subdivisions, their members, and their current and future customers in transactions involving the plaintiffs or their commercial members.

Consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Casa, the relief is limited to the parties before the court and does not extend nationwide.

Judge Hendrix stayed the injunction for seven days to give the government an opportunity to seek emergency appellate relief. The decision marks a significant, if currently party-limited, curtailment of the administrative machinery that has governed short-barreled firearms, silencers, and AOWs for generations. Whether higher courts will expand, narrow, or reverse the ruling remains to be seen, but the district court’s core holding is clear: once Congress removed the tax, the regulatory superstructure built solely upon that tax lost its constitutional footing.

---

About John Crump

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

---

from https://ift.tt/v4Kt76g
via IFTTT

Illinois Judge Rules Foster and Daycare Homes Are ‘Sensitive Places’

A federal judge ruled that Illinois may restrict access to operable firearms inside private residences used as licensed foster homes or in-home daycare centers. iStock-1489034470

A federal judge for the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division, ruled without trial that foster homes and in-home daycare centers are sensitive areas and that guns can be regulated in these private residences.

The case, Miller v. Mueller (18-cv-3085), challenged the Illinois Day Care Home Rule (89 Ill. Admin. Code § 406.8(a)(17)–(18)) and Foster Home Rule (related provisions under 89 Ill. Admin. Code § 402). The Day Care Home Rule prohibited handguns in any home that offers home daycare (with limited exceptions for peace officers or certain employment-required possession by residents). Other firearms must be kept disassembled, unloaded, and in locked storage inaccessible to children. Ammunition must be locked separately and inaccessible to children. Parents must be notified of the presence of firearms and ammunition, as well as the storage arrangements. Residents must also display “No Firearms” signs.

The Foster Home Rule requires that firearms and ammunition be kept locked and inaccessible to children. Loaded guns are generally prohibited (with limited exceptions) within residences. The maximum penalty for violations is license revocation.

Illinois residents and licensed foster parents Jennifer and Darin Miller, joined by the Second Amendment Foundation, Illinois State Rifle Association, and Illinois Carry, sued Heidi Mueller (Acting Director, Illinois DCFS) and Kwame Raoul (Illinois Attorney General). They claimed that the state codes violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the home under Heller and Bruen. Jennifer Miller also runs an in-home daycare center, giving her standing to challenge the Day Care Home Rule. The lawsuit was originally filed in 2018. A district court granted summary judgment for the defendants in 2022 (pre-Bruen). The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022).

The plaintiffs claimed that the rules could not survive a Bruen analysis. They succeeded at step one because the plain text of the Second Amendment presumptively covers the Millers’ desire to keep firearms operable in their home for self-defense. The judge, Obama-appointed Sue E. Myerscough, however, found that day-care homes and foster homes qualify as “sensitive places” analogous to schools (a category Heller and Bruen treat as presumptively lawful for firearm restrictions). She reasoned that both are environments overwhelmingly dominated by children; both involve learning, education, supervision, and skill-building; and both are already subject to extensive state safety regulation precisely because of the presence of children.

The judge wrote:

“The Court finds that the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule, that day care homes and foster homes are sensitive places analogous to schools where firearms may be restricted, and, therefore, that the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule restricting firearms kept in day care homes and foster homes, respectively, are constitutional. The Court also finds that both the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule are reasonable restrictions on government contractors’ and licensees’ assumedly implicated Second Amendment rights.”

Judge Myerscough said the rules are consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation in analogous sensitive places. They impose a comparable burden (not a total ban on possession in the home; limited to the licensed activity; discrete application to a narrow class of licensees/contractors; temporary while the license is held). She said the rules are conditions attached to government licenses (day care) and to government contractor status (foster care).

According to the judge, the government has greater latitude to impose conditions on those who voluntarily seek state benefits or contract with the state, especially when the conditions further the state’s interest in protecting children under its regulatory or custodial responsibility. The judge also said the Millers are not treated as “ordinary” law-abiding citizens in the Heller/Bruen sense because they have voluntarily invited intensive state regulation into their home in exchange for the privilege of providing licensed child care. They remain free to forgo the licenses if they prefer unrestricted firearm possession.

The court upheld both the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule as constitutional under Bruen (sensitive-places analysis + historical tradition) and under the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine. The judge said the restrictions are treated as reasonable, place- and role-based regulations tied to the state’s child-protection responsibilities rather than as general bans on the right to keep arms in the home.

Judge Myerscough’s decision prioritizes the state’s interest in regulated care environments over the full exercise of Second Amendment rights by licensees while they hold those licenses. This decision appears to apply interest balancing, which is explicitly prohibited by the Bruen decision. To many, this is a district court rejecting Supreme Court precedent. More shockingly, the judge ruled without a trial after deciding one was not needed. The plaintiffs are expected to appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

---

About John Crump

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

---

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

California’s New Glock Ban Returns to Judge Who Blocked Handgun Roster

The plaintiffs in Renna v. Bonta are asking a federal judge to block California’s ban on Glock and Glock-style pistols with cruciform trigger bars. IMG Duncan Johnson

A coalition of gun-rights organizations, California firearm owners, and licensed dealers is asking the federal judge who previously blocked major portions of California’s Handgun Roster to stop the state’s new ban on Glock and Glock-style pistols.

The plaintiffs in Renna v. Bonta filed a motion for preliminary injunction on August 4, asking U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw to enjoin California Penal Code § 27595(a). The plaintiffs include the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, National Rifle Association, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, individual California gun owners, and firearm dealers.

The challenged law prohibits licensed dealers from selling, offering for sale, transferring, or delivering what California calls a “semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol.” According to the filing, that definition effectively covers every factory-stock Glock semiautomatic pistol and many Glock-pattern handguns, including the Palmetto State Armory Dagger, Ruger RXM, and several Shadow Systems models.

Those are not obscure or unusually dangerous weapons. They are ordinary semiautomatic handguns commonly selected by Americans for lawful purposes, particularly personal and home defense.

The plaintiffs are asking the judge to block enforcement of the law while the case proceeds. A hearing on the preliminary-injunction motion is scheduled for September 4.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	GLOCK 48 MOS Optic Ready 9mm Pistol with Aimpoint COA - 4.17" - 2x 10rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 834.00
	GLOCK 43X MOS Optic Ready 9mm Pistol with Aimpoint COA - 3.41" - 2x 10rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 834.00
	GLOCK Blue Label G45 MOS Gen 5 Optic Ready 9mm Pistol with Aimpoint COA - 4.02" - 2x 17rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 893.00
	GLOCK Blue Label G43 9mm Pistol - 3.39" - 2x 6rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 411.00

California’s Handgun Roster Workaround Returns to Renna

The Renna lawsuit originally challenged California’s Unsafe Handgun Act and its government-controlled Handgun Roster. California generally prohibits licensed dealers from selling a handgun model unless the Department of Justice has approved that exact model for placement on the Roster.

The system excluded newer handguns while permitting some older models to remain available through grandfathering. That is why Californians could purchase certain Gen 3 Glock pistols but not newer Gen 4 and Gen 5 versions sold throughout most of the country.

In April 2023, Judge Sabraw preliminarily enjoined the Roster’s loaded-chamber-indicator, magazine-disconnect, and microstamping requirements. He found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that those mandates violated the Second Amendment by preventing Californians from commercially acquiring modern semiautomatic handguns in common use.

The court specifically discussed the Glock 43 and Glock 17 Gen 5 among the commonly owned pistols restricted by the Roster. That preliminary-injunction ruling remains under review by the Ninth Circuit.

Rather than accept the constitutional limits exposed in Renna, California enacted Assembly Bill 1127. The law took effect July 1, 2026, and created a separate prohibition aimed at both newer Glocks already blocked by the Roster and older Gen 3 models that remained available because they had been grandfathered.

The August 4 motion therefore places California’s attempted workaround before the same judge who previously found that major parts of the state’s handgun-control system were likely unconstitutional. As the plaintiffs state in the filing, “There is no Glock exception to the Second Amendment.”

The Filing Is Separate From the DOJ Lawsuit

The new Renna motion is separate from the Justice Department’s lawsuit challenging California’s Glock ban and portions of the Handgun Roster.

DOJ sued California on July 1 and sought a temporary restraining order against AB 1127. A judge denied that emergency request without finally resolving whether the law survives the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment test.

The Renna plaintiffs are now seeking a preliminary injunction in a different federal court and before a judge already familiar with California’s Roster restrictions. Their motion is also supported by declarations from Californians who want to purchase covered pistols for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and from firearm dealers forced to stop selling a major category of popular handguns.

The dealer plaintiffs told the court that Glock and Glock-style pistols represented a substantial part of their lawful business. They stopped selling or transferring the covered firearms because they face fines, criminal exposure, and possible suspension or revocation of their licenses if they violate the law.

That makes this more than a theoretical dispute over firearm design. Californians are currently being denied access to common defensive handguns, and licensed dealers are being threatened with punishment for selling them.

California Blames the Handgun for an Illegal Modification

California’s justification for the ban is that criminals can install devices commonly called Glock switches that cause some pistols to fire automatically. Those conversion devices are already illegal under state and federal law. California classifies pistol converters as machine guns and prohibits them. Federal law likewise treats the devices as machine guns, with unlawful possession, manufacture, or transfer carrying serious felony penalties.

AB 1127 does not close an overlooked loophole. It bans the original, unmodified handgun because someone might later attach a separate device that lawmakers have already prohibited. That is not a focused response to criminal conduct. It imposes the consequences of illegal modifications on peaceable people who have committed no crime.

Many lawful firearms can be illegally altered. That does not give the government authority to prohibit everyone else from acquiring the unaltered firearm. California could prosecute criminals who possess illegal switches or illegally convert pistols without banning millions of ordinary handguns.

The cruciform trigger bar targeted by the law is also not a machine-gun conversion device. It has been integral to Glock’s design since the early 1980s and serves legitimate functions, including helping prevent the handgun from firing if dropped.

California took a common mechanical feature found in millions of defensive pistols, attached the politically useful label “machinegun-convertible” to it, and used that label to shut down lawful commercial sales.

FPC President Brandon Combs provided the following statement regarding the filing:

“California is the unmistakable leader in innovating new and creative ways to impose tyranny. Rather than protect the rights of peaceable people, Gavin Newsom and his anti-rights regime are working to put people in cages and ban some of the most popular handguns in America. FPC and our Grassroots Army will defeat this latest attack on the right to keep and bear arms and continue to Fight Forward until every unconstitutional and immoral gun control law is eliminated.”

The Right to Keep Arms Includes the Right to Acquire Them

The constitutional analysis begins with the Second Amendment’s text. Glock pistols are bearable arms. Californians seeking to purchase them are among “the people.” A law that prevents them from acquiring those arms burdens their right to keep and bear them.

A right to possess a firearm would mean little if the government could prohibit every practical method of obtaining it. The Ninth Circuit has itself recognized that unless firearm acquisition receives some Second Amendment protection, the right to keep and bear arms becomes meaningless.

Because the text covers the plaintiffs’ proposed conduct, California bears the burden of demonstrating that its ban is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The state cannot satisfy that burden through policy arguments, crime statistics, or a court’s judgment that Californians do not need a particular handgun.

Under District of Columbia v. Heller, arms in common use for lawful purposes cannot be banned. Handguns are the quintessential self-defense weapons, and semiautomatic pistols make up the overwhelming majority of the modern handgun market.

Glocks are among the most popular handguns in the United States. The motion points to hundreds of thousands of pistols manufactured domestically, substantial imports, widespread civilian ownership, and extensive use by law-enforcement agencies.

California cannot transform one of America’s most commonly owned handgun designs into a “dangerous and unusual” weapon simply by giving it an inflammatory name in the Penal Code.

California’s Model Is Spreading

California’s theory is already being copied elsewhere. Maryland enacted a similar restriction targeting Glock and Glock-style pistols with cruciform trigger bars, and gun-rights groups have moved for a preliminary injunction before that law takes effect.

The Renna motion also states that Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York have taken legislative or regulatory action mimicking California’s restriction. The filing does not explain the details of each state’s measure, so they should not all be described as identical. The broader pattern, however, is clear.

States that cannot openly prohibit handguns increasingly rely on approved-product lists, mechanical design mandates, and model-specific definitions to narrow the lawful handgun market one restriction at a time.

California may prosecute people who possess illegal machine-gun conversion devices. It may prosecute criminals who illegally modify firearms. What it cannot do is use those crimes as a pretext to ban unmodified handguns owned by millions of peaceable Americans.

Judge Sabraw has already found that California’s government-approved handgun market likely conflicts with the Second Amendment. The state has now returned with a new law aimed at many of the same pistols.

The statutory name changed. The constitutional defect did not.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/7geLo0p
via IFTTT