The Hughes Amendment Explained: How a 1986 Voice Vote Banned New Machine Guns for Americans

On the morning of April 10, 1986, the U.S. House of Representatives chamber buzzed with exhaustion and political scheming. Lawmakers had been debating the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), a bill long championed by the National Rifle Association (NRA) as a corrective to decades of alleged Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) overreach. The legislation promised to ease interstate gun sales, protect travelers carrying guns across state lines, narrow the definition of who needed a dealer’s license, and raise the bar for prosecuting technical violations from “knowing” to “willful.” It was set to pass overwhelmingly.

Then New Jersey Democrat Rep. William J. Hughes rose. As chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Hughes offered a last-minute amendment. It would make it unlawful for any private citizen to “transfer or possess a machinegun” manufactured after the bill’s effective date. Only those already legally registered under the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) would be grandfathered. The amendment, numbered H.Amdt.777, was brief and sweeping: it added subsection (o) to 18 U.S.C. § 922.

Presiding over the Committee of the Whole was New York Democrat Rep. Charles Rangel. He called for a voice vote. “All in favor say ‘aye,’” Rangel intoned. Ayes echoed. “All opposed, ‘no.’” The nays shouted louder according to multiple eyewitness accounts and later video analysis circulating in gun rights circles. Yet Rangel declared, “The ayes have it.” Republicans immediately demanded a recorded vote. Rangel pressed forward. The amendment was recorded as having passed by voice vote. Minutes later, the full FOPA package passed the House by a vote of 292-130. On May 19, President Ronald Reagan signed Public Law 99-308 into effect.

Thus, the Hughes Amendment was born, the single most reviled provision in modern firearms law among Second Amendment advocates. Forty years later, in 2026, it remains the iron curtain separating civilians from newly manufactured machine guns.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride A2 Mid-Length 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99
	PSA PA-15 20" Nitride Rifle-Length 5.56 NATO Classic AR-15 Rifle W/Carry Handle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 599.99
	PSA PA-15 16"Nitride M4 Carbine 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99
	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride A2 Mid-Length 5.56 NATO MOE AR-15 Rifle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99

The civilian registry of transferable pre-1986 machine guns is frozen at roughly 240,000–250,000 units (exact figures fluctuate slightly with ATF reports and include samples held by manufacturers). Prices have exploded: a transferable MAC-10 that sold for $350 in the early 1980s now commands $15,000–$25,000. A select-fire M16 that once traded for under $2,000 routinely exceeds $30,000. Drop-in auto sears, once cheap conversion parts, have hit $28,000 or more. Legal ownership requires ATF Form 4 approval, fingerprints, photos, a $200 tax stamp, and often months of waiting, assuming your state even permits it.

The controversy is not simply economic. Gun rights organizations such as Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) call the amendment’s passage procedurally illegitimate, a “midnight special” rammed through when many pro-gun members had left the floor believing the bill was safely pro-Second Amendment. C-SPAN footage on that day, widely analyzed on sites like YouTube, shows Rangel gaveling through demands for a roll-call vote. Critics insist the “nays” clearly carried the voice tally. Official congressional records list only “passed by voice vote.” No recorded tally of individual lawmakers exists for the amendment itself, a fact that fuels accusations of parliamentary sleight of hand.

Hughes himself never hid his intent. A moderate Democrat with a record of supporting some gun control measures while backing environmental causes, he argued the amendment would prevent the proliferation of fully automatic weapons in civilian hands. Machine guns, he and his supporters contended, were weapons of war, not sporting arms. With Democrats holding the House majority and enough votes present that evening, the amendment sailed through without a recorded division that might have exposed the margin or forced absent members to take a stand.

The irony stood thick. FOPA itself was the product of years of NRA lobbying to undo what many viewed as the worst excesses of the 1968 Gun Control Act. That earlier law, passed in the emotional consequences of the assassinations of Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, imposed dealer licensing, record-keeping, and interstate sale restrictions that critics said ensnared law-abiding collectors and hobbyists. ATF enforcement tactics, warrantless inspections, seizures without due process, and felony prosecutions for paperwork errors became legendary horror stories in gun magazines of the era. Senate passage of FOPA (S. 49) had been lopsided: 79-15 on July 9, 1985. In the House, Rep. Harold Volkmer (D-MO) used a rare successful discharge petition to force floor debate, substituting a strong pro-gun version for the Judiciary Committee’s watered-down bill.

Hughes had already tried multiple amendments that day, some tightening dealer definitions, others limiting interstate transport, most of which failed on recorded votes. The machine-gun ban was the one that stuck. NRA leadership, desperate to salvage the wider reforms after a seven-year legislative slog, chose not to wage an all-out floor fight. Former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman later described a dinner conversation with then-rising star Wayne LaPierre: the decision was made to swallow the amendment to secure the rest of the bill. “He said, ‘I want to do it. I think we have to do it,’” Feldman recalled in a 2013 NPR interview. Years later, some NRA insiders regretted the choice, saying it haunted the organization as grassroots members viewed it as a betrayal.

President Reagan, a popular Republican president who once carried a .44 Magnum as governor of California, signed the bill without public comment on the Hughes provision. The law took effect immediately on May 19, 1986. The civilian supply of new machine guns slammed shut.

The economic consequences were foreseeable yet staggering. Supply fixed; demand unchanged. Collectors and investors bid up the finite pool of pre-ban transferable machine guns. What had been a niche market for devotees and Class III dealers became a high-stakes investment arena. Today, owning a transferable M249 SAW or a registered MP5 costs more than a new luxury car. Destroyed or worn-out guns permanently shrink the registry. Post-1986 “dealer samples” exist only for law enforcement and military, and even those are tightly controlled.

Anti-gun advocates hail the amendment as a quiet success. Gun violence researcher Robert Spitzer of SUNY Cortland told NPR in 2013 that the 1986 freeze was “a fairly small step” on top of the already burdensome 1934 NFA, which required $200 tax stamps (thousands in today’s dollars), fingerprints, and registration. He argued machine guns had never been common in civilian hands; the ban simply prevented any resurgence. Crime statistics back the rarity argument: ATF data and independent analyses show legally registered machine guns have been used in extraordinarily few violent crimes, and some studies cite near-zero incidents involving pre-1986 registered firearms by lawful owners. The weapons’ primary documented misuse has been by criminals converting illegal semi-automatics or using smuggled military surplus.

Second Amendment purists reject the safety rationale. They point out that the Founding-era militia concept explicitly included the use of military arms. The Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller decision described machine guns as “dangerous and unusual” in dicta, but the post-2022 Bruen ruling, which demands historical analogues for gun regulations, has opened new legal paths.

In August 2024, U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes in Kansas dismissed charges against a man possessing unregistered machine guns, holding that the Hughes Amendment and broader NFA restrictions fail Bruen’s text-history-tradition test. The case is under appeal, but it represents the first significant federal crack. Other challenges percolate in conservative circuits. Gun rights groups argue the amendment lacks any founding-era parallel for banning an entire class of arms.

Repeal efforts have repeatedly failed. Bills introduced by Reps. Steve Stockman, Virgil Goode, and others died in committee. The NRA, once accused of softness on the issue, now routinely includes repeal language in its legislative scorecards. Groups like Gun Owners of America push harder, drafting model state legislation exploiting the amendment’s narrow exemption for transfers “to or by” a state. In the 2025–2026 legislative session, West Virginia and Kentucky lawmakers introduced bills creating state agencies to manufacture or transfer post-1986 machine guns to citizens, testing the federal loophole. None have yet succeeded, but the creativity underscores frustration.

The individual stories are poignant. Veterans who carried M16s in Vietnam could once buy civilian equivalents affordably. Today’s young enthusiasts face a de facto ban. Manufacturers stopped producing civilian-legal full-auto firearms decades ago. Innovation in the machine-gun space shifted entirely to military and law enforcement contracts. Collectors speak wistfully of the pre-1986 era, when a Class III dealer could order a new UZI or MAC-10 and have it delivered after paperwork was completed.

Politically, the Hughes Amendment crystallized the modern gun control divide. On one side, it is a sensible regulation of weapons of mass destruction. To the other, it is the clearest example of Congress using procedural trickery to erode constitutional rights. The absence of a recorded vote denies posterity any accountability no list of who voted to freeze the registry exists. Critics note that many pro-gun Democrats and Republicans had already left the floor after earlier votes, assuming victory on the core FOPA reforms.

In the decades since, the amendment has withstood constitutional challenges under pre-Bruen standards. Lower courts uniformly upheld it, citing Heller’s dicta and the government’s interest in preventing automatic-fire proliferation. But Bruen changed the analytical system. Scholars and litigators now argue that 18th- and 19th-century laws never banned an entire category of bearable arms outright. The NFA’s original 1934 tax-and-register scheme was upheld as a revenue measure, not a ban. The 1986 addition crossed into prohibition.

As of today, the registry remains closed. No new civilian machine guns roll off assembly lines. Prices continue their inexorable climb. A cottage industry of brokers, Class III dealers, and trust attorneys thrives on transfers. Meanwhile, illegal machine guns converted AR-15s with auto-sears or “Glock switches” appear in some urban crime scenes, but those are unrelated to the legal pre-1986 pool.

Rep. Hughes died in 2019 at age 87, his obituary noting environmental achievements and a long congressional career. The amendment bearing his name continues to serve as a symbol. Gun rights activists mark May 19 annually as a day of mourning. Repeal petitions circulate on the White House website. Conservative lawmakers introduce symbolic bills every Congress.

The deeper controversy transcends procedure. It touches the fundamental question of what arms the Second Amendment protects. If machine guns, the very arms carried by the militia in the founding era’s understanding, can be banned for civilians via a voice vote with no recorded dissenters, what precedent does that set for semi-automatic rifles, handguns, or any modern firearm? Supporters counter that public safety and the rarity of machine-gun crime justify the line drawn in 1986.

Forty years on, the Hughes Amendment remains one of the most consequential and contested pieces of firearms legislation in U.S. history. It changed a once-accessible class of firearms into multimillion-dollar collectibles. It exposed the weakness of legislative procedure when passions run high. And it continues fueling the national debate over the right to keep and bear arms in its most literal, military form.

Whether future courts or Congress will reopen the registry remains uncertain. But one thing is clear: the voice vote heard around the gun world in April 1986 still echoes loudly today.

---

About John Crump

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

---

from https://ift.tt/itxkl0L
via IFTTT

Nearly 1 in 3 Voters Say They Carry a Concealed Handgun, Survey Finds

A July 2026 CPRC survey found that 30.9% of general-election voters carry a concealed handgun all, most, some, or rarely. IMG Duncan Johnson

Research done at the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) and published in July of 2026 shows the percentage and number of people carrying concealed handguns continues to increase.

A survey of 1000 people conducted by McLaughlin  & Associates on July 22, 2026 shows significant increases in the carrying of concealed handguns. In the last 19 months, from December of 2024 to July of 2026, the percentage of likely voters who carried all or most of the time increased from 13% to 15.7%, an increase of 2.7% of the sample. Those who carry sometimes/rarely increased from 11% to 15.2% or 4.2% of the sample.

The total who carry increased from 24% in 2024 to 30.9% in 2026, or 6.6% of the sample.

Similarly, the total of those who say they never carry dropped from 73% to 66.6%, a 6.4% drop. Those who claim they “don’t know” if they carry increased from 2% to 2.5%. The sample is of likely voters in general elections.  Such a sample may or may not be indicative of the habits of non-voters.

20.1% of the respondents stated they possessed a concealed handgun permit. This is slightly lower than previous findings. The slightly lower number may be related to the increasing number of Constitutional Carry states, now at 29, where no permit is needed to carry a holstered handgun, openly or concealed, in most public spaces. 68.9% of the people who carry most or all of the time are located in Constitutional Carry states. The 29 Constitutional Carry states contain 47% of the population of the United States. The 29 Constitutional Carry states account for 68.8% of the land area of the United States of America. About 2/3 of the people who carry all or most of the time in Constitutional Carry states have a concealed carry permit. About half of the people who carry some of the time in Constitutional Carry states have a concealed carry permit.

People aged 18-40 carry at higher rates than people aged 41 and up. In ethnic groups, Hispanics carry at slightly higher rates than Blacks, Asians carry at the lowest levels, and White people and Other are in between.  Republicans carry at higher rates than Democratic or Independent voters do. When ranked by ideology, very liberal voters carry at the highest rates, with 30.8% carrying all the time, vs 21.6% of very conservative voters carrying all the time.

According to CPRC research, economic status shows the strongest correlation with carrying concealed handguns.

Those who identified themselves as wealthy showed a percentage who carried all or most of the time at 62.9%. Those who considered themselves upper middle class and who carried all or most of the time were 28%. Those who considered themselves middle middle class showed 15.7% carrying all the time, lower middle class showed on 9% carrying all the time and only 7% of self identified poor people carried all the time. 4.1% of the sample considered themselves to be wealthy, and 15.5% of the sample considered themselves to be poor. 80.4% considered themselves to be in the middle class.

From the self-identified sample, it appears the average income of those who considered themselves to be wealthy was over $175K per year per household.

These surveys commissioned by the Crime Prevention Research Center offer fascinating insight into the makeup of people who routinely go armed in the United States. The numbers and percentages keep increasing. While not all people who go armed support the Second Amendment, going armed increases the odds of valuing the Second Amendment.

When a person goes about armed, it changes their mental set. They become more independent and aware. They are more likely to view those who seek to disarm them with suspicion.

The wealthy in society tend to be those who set trends. The large percentage of wealthy who carry all the time suggest the percentage of people who carry will continue to increase.

---

About Dean Weingarten:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/MwJmhI8
via IFTTT

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