ATF Moves to Cut Fingerprint, Photo Requirements for NFA Gun Owners

ATF’s proposed rule would reduce some fingerprint and photo requirements for NFA firearm applications, including suppressors and SBRs. IMG Jim Grant

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) unveiled a new proposed rule that would simplify the process of acquiring National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms.

The ATF filed a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register today. The rule is titled “Fingerprint and Photograph Requirements for Firearms Applications” [Docket No. ATF-2026-0397; ATF 2025R-14P]. It modifies 27 CFR parts 478 and 479 to reduce burdens on the American gun-owning population by removing several key requirements for filing ATF Forms 4 and 1.

Currently, when a gun owner submits an NFA form to the ATF, they must submit two fingerprint cards and a 2” x 2” photo, similar to a passport photo. The proposed rule will change that. NFA applicants no longer need to provide two separate fingerprint cards. This reduces the number to a single card. Although, since most applicants use electronic EFT fingerprints, it will not be a noticeable change for most. The use of digital fingerprints for electronic submission will be codified. Codifying the acceptance of digital fingerprints will make it harder for future ATF regimes to eliminate the acceptance of EFT files, requiring gun owners to mail in paper cards.

What Changes for NFA Trusts

The real change in fingerprinting will apply to NFA trust applicants. The proposed rule removes the fingerprinting requirement entirely, meaning if someone uses a trust, they will not be required to submit fingerprints. This change is limited to customers with NFA trusts because of federal statutes. The ATF claims that the FBI only requests fingerprints for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) about 1% of the time.

Individuals and trust holders will no longer need to submit a passport photo. They will be able to prove their identity with a scan or photo of a government-issued ID. This change will eliminate the burden on gun owners to have to seek out a place to get their pictures taken. The ATF can request photos and fingerprints only in a few circumstances to complete the FBI background check.

The ATF believes the change will not affect public safety and will help it achieve its goal of being less burdensome to the American public regarding the right to keep and bear arms. This is the latest rule to be introduced by the ATF in its attempt to restructure its regulatory powers to be less adversarial toward the American gun owner. After years of a Joe Biden ATF going after Americans for just wanting to exercise their God-given right, the changes have drawn a rare nod of approval from the gun community.

The rule is set to be published on Monday, July 6, 2026. There will be a 90-day comment period where anti-gun groups are expected to flood the comments with attempts to change the ATF’s mind, but the data is not on its side. This change is long overdue, and more changes are expected in the coming weeks.

Gun Owners Should Comment on the Rule

Gun owners and pro-gun organizations should make their voices heard through the comment process. With this new rule, the injunctions over the Virginia “assault weapons” ban, the Department of Justice suing Virginia over the ban and California over its Glock ban, and the Supreme Court granting certiorari in a couple of “assault weapon” ban cases, it has not been a good week for anti-gun zealots.

---

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/RBULK4I
via IFTTT

Facing Legal Obstacles To Gun Bans, Prohibitionists Shift The Narrative

Gun-control advocates are shifting their messaging from outright bans to public-health-style “gun violence prevention” campaigns. iStock-483315547

“America has a massive gun violence problem,” Belgian economist and founder of Money & Macro Media Joeri Schasfoort declares on MSN. “Compared to other wealthy countries, the U.S. murder rate is extremely high, and behind most of these deaths is the pull of the trigger.”

That’s three bits of concentrated disinformation that unquestioning, low-information viewers will accept as authoritative, packed into just the first 10 seconds of the video.

The first is that “gun violence” is a politically engineered and emotionally charged propaganda term that attributes actions to inert objects and is then used to sway public opinion by lumping separate issues like justifiable homicides and suicides in with criminal misuse of firearms.

The second is the impression that violence plagues all of America. As economist and author John Lott has shown, “Most counties experience no murders, a smaller subset of counties where there are a few murders, and then a minuscule subset of counties where murders are very common.”

The third is the undefined and cherry-picked chart of “other wealthy countries,” specifically noting two prominent ones that are consistently omitted from such displays. Anybody see Russia or Mexico listed, both with more restrictive gun laws and higher violent crime than the U.S.? Whether one consults the UN, the IMF, the World Bank or the CIA Factbook, they both have a larger GDP than some of the nations that qualify as “developed” when it suits gun-grabber purposes.

Schasfoort then declares, “The obvious solution is then to ban guns, but…”

The pesky right to keep and bear arms gets in the way of that, along with statements from some gun owners who want no part of prohibitions.

So a ban is “unlikely to happen,” Schasfoort admits. “Luckily, I have some good news. Social scientists have recently conducted extensive experiments that confirm that U.S. gun violence can actually be drastically reduced without banning guns.”

Bear in mind there are two kinds of luck, “good news” is in the eye of the beholder, and he’s still using that loaded term. Still, let’s hear him out and see what the “scientists” are hypothesizing. After all, we’re only 44 seconds into the video at this point and we still have over 18 minutes to go.

It seems the University of Pennsylvania has concluded that violence has been statistically reduced in select Philadelphia locations when vacant land was cleaned up and developed into community centers. The working theory is that drawing people out together drives clandestine criminal activity to go somewhere else, and that people present can act as “violence interrupters” to mediate disputes. What’s unclear is if the claimed reduction in “gun violence” is an anomaly that will hold and what other factors might be at play (including increases in “legal” gun sales). But OK, at least they’re not demanding infringements.

To give the contention gravitas, Schasfoort brings in Chicago professor and economist Jens Ludwig, “one of the leading researchers on gun violence [sic],” who also happens to be “Pritzker Director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab,” with all that implies. Most homicides, we are told, aren’t planned with “calculated criminal intent,” but arise “from fights or arguments that escalated beyond control.”

So, it comes from a sense of unearned entitlement, anger management issues, and poor impulse control. Recalling Lott’s findings, in a “miniscule subset,” that should surprise no one.

“The murder rate in the United States today is almost exactly the same as it was in 1900,” Ludwig explains. If you think about it, that admission doesn’t do much for the prohibitionist argument. Nor do the facts about how many guns there are in this country. As for the nod to Japan and South Korea having essentially disarmed populations and the “lowest homicide rates in the world,” they also have homogenous populations. It’s an inconvenient truth that the millions of members of groups like NRA, GOA, SAF, and other national and state groups, the most heavily armed civilian population on the planet, are every bit as statistically peaceable. When 80,000 armed gun owners show up at an annual meeting, there are plenty of opportunities for arguments to arise that never result in shots being fired.

Not according to the “leading researcher.”

“The research that I’ve done and what other people have done show that when a place has more guns on net, the murder rate goes up, so whatever deterrent effect more gun ownership might have to prevent crime is outweighed by the effects of guns increasing lethality of interpersonal conflict,” Ludwig, who apparently has never been to an NRA convention or a competition match, or Appleseed training, or an armed march, proclaims.

Again, attributing the inability of that “minuscule subset” to control its passions on the rest of the Republic is the essence of “gun control.” And gun possession is not the same thing as gun ownership.

There’s also a carrot (as if you can bribe predators) and stick analogy that doesn’t factor in a truism—while violence to the public can be temporarily curbed when those who can’t be trusted with a gun are in cages, releasing them makes further victimization inevitable. Also, BAM (Becoming a Man) training can only go so far when the Democrats who rule in those areas can’t seem to define what a man is. And good grief, the example they present is someone who thinks not murderously assaulting a person who inadvertently bumps into him is a major behavioral achievement. Don’t be surprised to see that guy in the news before too long.

There’s plenty more to go through in the video (including the purposeful omission of attributing violence reductions to armed citizens and the inevitable vulnerabilities of “gun free zones”) but there’s not much point to going on — except to encourage readers to watch the rest of it with a critical eye now that we’re familiar with how these people operate, what they say, and what they don’t.

It’s good, a victory actually, that people who would like to ban guns – and that, of course, is their ultimate goal – have a sense that it’s not going to happen politically, at least in the near term. But just because they talk about “progress” without prohibitions doesn’t mean they’ve given up on the idea.  The smarter gun-grabbers see which way the momentum is going, and two recent preliminary injunctions against Virginia’s semi-auto ban and the Supreme Court granting cert to national challenges show them that demanding bans  — at this time — is a political non-starter.

Let Democrats advance in the midterms with an eye toward recapturing the White House (and SCOTUS appointments) in 2028, and expect to see gun bans back with a vengeance.

---

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/BDAvG9f
via IFTTT

ATF Clears Virginia NFA Forms Ahead Of July 1 Gun Ban Deadline

ATF Director Robert Cekada said all Virginia Form 1 and Form 4 submissions were processed before the state’s July 1 gun-ban deadline. Image Duncan Johnson

ATF Director Robert Cekada gave Virginia gun owners a rare bit of good news this week, announcing that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had processed every Form 1 and Form 4 submitted by Virginians ahead of the state’s July 1 gun-ban deadline.

Virginia legal gun owners, We heard you and we’ve acted.

As of today, every Form 1 & Form 4 submitted by Virginians was processed before the anticipated July 1 change to Virginia law that would prohibit the import, sale, manufacture, purchase & transfer of certain firearms. 1/2

— Robert Cekada (@ATFDirectorRC) July 1, 2026

ATF Says Virginia Forms Were Processed Before Deadline

According to Cekada, ATF completed processing for all pending Form 1 and Form 4 submissions from Virginians before the anticipated effective date of HB 217 and SB 749, the new Virginia laws signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger on May 14. Those laws restrict the future importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines holding more than 15 rounds.

A Form 1 is used by a lawful applicant seeking approval to make an NFA-regulated firearm, such as a short-barreled rifle. A Form 4 is used for the transfer of an NFA item, such as a suppressor, machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or other covered item.

If the government sat on those forms past July 1, some lawful Virginians could have been trapped by a state deadline while waiting on federal paperwork. Cekada said ATF acted to prevent that.

“I remain committed to ensuring lawful firearm owners are not negatively impacted by administrative or statutory changes,” Cekada wrote, adding that ATF would continue working to make its processes “fast, fair and accessible” to lawful applicants.

That is not the kind of sentence gun owners are used to hearing from ATF leadership. For decades, the agency has been viewed by much of the gun community as a hostile bureaucracy more interested in technical traps than protecting rights. That history does not disappear because of one X post. But credit is due where credit is due: this was the right move.

Gun Owners Praise The Move, But Still Want The NFA Gone

The reaction from gun owners was swift and largely positive. Virginia NFA applicants and Second Amendment advocates praised the announcement as a win for lawful owners who were racing against an arbitrary deadline created by Richmond politicians. Many in the gun community saw the move as evidence that the new ATF leadership is at least listening when law-abiding citizens are about to be punished by the collision of state bans and federal processing delays.

That praise came with a healthy dose of skepticism, too. Gun owners are not suddenly forgetting the the ATF’s history as the enforcement arm of politically motivated anti-gun agendas or their continued defense of the NFA. Still, many recognized that clearing the Virginia queue was exactly what a federal agency should do when its own approval process could otherwise become the reason citizens lose access to lawfully owned property.

Turns out all the Virginia “illegal” gun owners were able to make and transfer whatever NFA firearms they wanted too.

Grateful for this as a Virginian who just had his Form 1 approved, but the NFA is a failed gun control measure that has never stopped a single criminal.

— Aidan Johnston (@RealGunLobbyist) July 1, 2026

Virginia Gun Ban Remains Tied Up In Court

The announcement also landed in the middle of legal chaos in Virginia. Gun rights groups have challenged the new ban, and court injunctions have already blocked enforcement by Virginia State Police while the lawsuits continue. The state is expected to keep fighting to revive the law, but the injunctions have created uncertainty over how, when, and against whom the ban can be enforced.

ATF moved before the deadline instead of letting lawful owners twist in the wind. For Virginia gun owners caught in the NFA pipeline, that mattered.

---

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/BHTA2CS
via IFTTT

DOJ Sues California Over Glock Ban And Handgun Roster

The Justice Department is suing California over its Glock ban and Handgun Roster, arguing the state is blocking access to common modern handguns protected by the Second Amendment. IMG Duncan Johnson

The Trump Justice Department has sued California to stop the state’s new “Glock ban” and major parts of its restrictive Handgun Roster, arguing that California is violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.

The lawsuit, United States v. California and Robert Bonta, was filed July 1, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It names the State of California and Attorney General Rob Bonta in his official capacity as head of the California Department of Justice.

This is not just another private gun-rights lawsuit. This is the United States government suing California and saying, in plain terms, that enforcing these handgun restrictions amounts to a civil-rights violation.

At issue are two California schemes: Penal Code section 27595, commonly called the “Glock ban,” and the state’s Unsafe Handgun Act, which controls what handguns may be sold through California’s Handgun Roster.

DOJ Targets California’s Glock Ban

California’s Glock ban took effect July 1. The law prohibits licensed firearms dealers from selling, offering for sale, transferring, or delivering what the state calls “semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistols.”

The statute does not use the word “Glock,” but DOJ says the target is obvious.

According to the complaint, the law is “commonly known as the ‘Glock Ban,’ because it bans the sale of virtually all Glock and Glock-style pistols.” DOJ says the restriction reaches not only Glock-branded pistols but also popular Glock-pattern handguns such as the Palmetto State Armory Dagger, Ruger RXM, and many Shadow Systems models.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - Aimpoint COA Optic - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 885.20
	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - AmeriGlo Night Sights - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 592.30
	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - GLOCK Night Sights - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 565.68
	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - Fixed Sights - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 513.65

California claims these pistols are dangerous because criminals can illegally install conversion devices, often called Glock switches, that turn some semiautomatic pistols into machine guns. DOJ’s answer is simple: conversion devices are already illegal. California cannot ban ordinary, lawful handguns because a criminal might illegally modify one.

The complaint uses a comparison every gun owner understands. A legal shotgun can be turned into an illegal short-barreled shotgun with a hacksaw, but that does not give the state power to ban shotguns. A semiautomatic rifle can be illegally converted into a machine gun, but that does not make ordinary semiautomatic rifles illegal.

In DOJ’s words, “California’s ban on the sale of the most popular handgun in America obviously violates the Second Amendment.”

Handgun Roster Also Challenged

The lawsuit goes beyond the Glock ban. DOJ also attacks California’s Handgun Roster requirements, including the chamber-load indicator, magazine-disconnect mechanism, and microstamping rules that have blocked many modern handguns from the California market.

DOJ leans heavily on Boland v. Bonta, where a federal judge previously said Californians have a constitutional right to acquire and use “state-of-the-art handguns” for self-defense and should not be forced to settle for decade-old models.

That is the heart of the roster problem. California does not merely regulate handguns. It decides which handguns ordinary citizens may buy, while carving out exceptions for law enforcement and other favored groups.

The complaint argues that the Second Amendment protects the right to acquire arms, not just possess whatever old models the state leaves on the shelf. A right to keep and bear arms means little if California can choke off the sale of modern, commonly used defensive pistols.

Civil Rights Law Enters The Fight

The most important part of the lawsuit may be the legal vehicle DOJ is using.

The United States brought the case under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, a federal civil-rights statute usually associated with “pattern or practice” misconduct by government agencies and law enforcement officers.

DOJ’s theory is direct. California DOJ Bureau of Firearms agents and other state law-enforcement officers enforce the state’s firearms laws. If those laws violate the Second Amendment, then their enforcement creates a pattern or practice of depriving citizens of constitutional rights.

Gun rights are civil rights. When a state criminalizes access to commonly owned arms, it is not merely making “gun policy.” It is violating rights protected by the Constitution.

Bonta Refused DOJ’s Demand

The filing came after Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon warned California on June 24 that DOJ was prepared to sue if the state refused to stop enforcing the challenged laws.

On June 30, Bonta rejected that demand. In a response letter, he said the California Department of Justice “will not agree” to cease enforcement, acknowledge the laws are unconstitutional, or enter a consent decree.

Not that I ever expect good faith from Rob Bonta and my clownshow state of California, but there is so much bullshit in this response I have to do a short thread on it breaking it down. https://t.co/Nxtnkt536L

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) June 30, 2026

Bonta defended the Unsafe Handgun Act and Penal Code section 27595 as “commonsense handgun design safety laws.” He also pointed to pending Ninth Circuit roster cases, including Boland v. Bonta and Renna v. Bonta, and claimed hundreds of handgun models remain available for sale in California.

But the Constitution is not satisfied by a government-approved menu. The question is not whether California allows some handguns. The question is whether it can ban the commercial sale of common modern handguns while pretending the Second Amendment remains intact.

DOJ says it cannot.

The lawsuit asks the court for declaratory judgment and a permanent statewide injunction blocking enforcement of the Glock ban and the challenged roster provisions. For California gun owners, this could become one of the most important handgun cases in the country.

---

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/JjdOqf7
via IFTTT

DOJ Sues Virginia Over AR-15 Ban Targeting Commonly Owned Rifles

The DOJ has sued Virginia over its new “assault firearms” ban, arguing the law targets commonly owned firearms protected by the Second Amendment. IMG Duncan Johnson

The United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division filed a lawsuit against Virginia following the state’s enactment of a new “assault firearms” ban.

The ban, which currently has two state-level injunctions against it, was due to go into effect on July 1. It bans some of the most commonly owned firearms in the country, such as the AR-15, for having certain cosmetic features, such as threaded barrels. Virginia, once a gun-friendly state, has become one of the most hostile toward the ownership of firearms. The bill, known as SB 749, was signed by Governor Abigail Spanberger, a former member of Moms Demand Action, earlier this year.

Just as the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, the AR-15 is not a second-class arm. As promised, @CivilRights is moving fast to vindicate Virginians’ rights to acquire the most popular rifle in the country for self-defense.https://t.co/pn1YlRQ1h4

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) July 1, 2026

DOJ Targets Virginia’s ‘Assault Firearms’ Ban

The lawsuit, United States of America v. The Commonwealth of Virginia and The Virginia Department of State Police, highlights Virginia’s rich history of firearm ownership. It was the birthplace of the Second Amendment, as written by Virginian James Madison, known as the “Father of the Constitution.”

The brief reads: “From before the beginning of this Nation’s existence, Virginians have provided indispensable leadership in the cause of constitutional liberty. Indeed, Virginian James Madison is, for good reason, known as the Father of the Constitution. Madison also drafted and proposed the Bill of Rights, which became effective on December 15, 1791, when Virginia became the eleventh state to ratify it.”

The lawsuit highlights how the bill uses “politically charged rhetoric to describe the arms to which it applied.” Terms such as “assault firearms” and “assault weapons” didn’t exist until 1989, when anti-gun advocates coined them to confuse the public with the term “assault rifle.” This distinction has been highlighted in the past by the Supreme Court in an Associate Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting opinion.

Thomas wrote in Stenberg v. Carhart: “Prior to 1989, the term assault weapon did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles so as to allow an attack on as many additional firearms as possible on the basis of undefined ‘evil’ appearance.”

Bruen, Wolford, and the Second Amendment Test

The DOJ argues that the banned firearms fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment. According to the recent Wolford decision, the only two questions that can be asked at step one of a Bruen analysis are whether the people being burdened are members of “the people” — that is, law-abiding citizens — and whether the arm is bearable. In this case, the answer to both is an unequivocal yes.

In step two of the Bruen analysis, the burden falls to the state to show, through historical analogue evidence, that the firearm law is consistent with the nation’s tradition and history of firearms regulation. States have a track record of citing racist Black Codes from the Reconstruction era to justify their bans, but once again, in Wolford, the Supreme Court was clear that it will no longer accept such analogues.

The brief also covers how these arms are in common use nationwide, with millions in circulation. The fallback position of anti-gun states has been to claim they are not in common use for “self-defense,” but Wolford makes it clear that common use includes both offensive and defensive purposes. The DOJ further highlights that AR-15s are rarely used in crimes by noting that the number of murders committed with all long guns is far lower than those committed with handguns, knives, blunt objects, or hands and feet.

A Major Federal Escalation

This federal lawsuit represents a significant escalation in the ongoing battle to protect Second Amendment rights against unconstitutional state-level restrictions. By directly challenging Virginia’s “assault firearms” ban on both textual and historical grounds, the Department of Justice is reinforcing the Bruen framework and sending a clear message that politically motivated gun control measures cannot override constitutional protections.

As the case progresses, it could set important precedents that safeguard commonly owned firearms and curb the use of misleading terminology designed to erode public support for the right to keep and bear arms.

---

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/CAlDwsv
via IFTTT

Finally! SCOTUS Will Hear Two ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Cases

The U.S Supreme Court has agreed to hear combined cases from Illinois and Connecticut regarding bans on modern semiautomatic rifles. IMG Duncan Johnson

The U.S. Supreme Court has finally agreed to hear the question gun owners have been waiting years to see answered: whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess modern semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15.

For Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the reaction was simple.

“Finally!”

The Court granted review in two major Second Amendment cases: Grant v. Higgins, a challenge to Connecticut’s ban, and Viramontes v. Cook County, a challenge to Cook County, Illinois’ ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The cases will be consolidated, putting one of the most important unresolved Second Amendment questions directly before the justices.

Supreme Court Takes the AR-15 Ban Question

That question is straightforward. Can the government ban rifles that are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes, or are those rifles protected “arms” under the Constitution?

Gun owners have been watching the high court kick this can down the road time after time.

The case of Grant v. Higgins had been distributed for conference 17 times since January, with no action until now. The other case, known as Viramontes v. Cook County, had been distributed 22 times since last November. The history of these distributions has been tracked by the popular SCOTUSblog for months.

Two Major Rifle Ban Cases Will Be Heard Together

Grant v. Higgins is a SAF case out of Connecticut, originally known as Grant v. Lamont, was filed by SAF, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens in September 2022, three months after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen which, according to the original complaint, “clarified the proper legal standard under which courts must analyze Second Amendment cases.”

Viramontes v. Cook County is a case challenging the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in Cook County, Illinois. SAF is joined in this case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all Cook County residents. This case was originally filed in August 2021. At the time this case was filed, Gottlieb said in a statement to the media, “The guns on the ban list are commonly owned and used all over the country for all kinds of legitimate purposes including hunting, target shooting, competition, predator control and recreation. Citizens have a right to own such firearms, and to ban them is an affront to the Constitution.”

The history of both cases underscores the sluggishness of movement of Second Amendment cases through the federal courts.

SAF: “A Right Delayed Is a Right Denied”

Upon hearing that both cases have been granted high court review, the SAF team was elated. Gottlieb advised Ammoland News that the cases will be consolidated.

“We are very excited that SCOTUS will hear our two very important Second Amendment Foundation cases,” Gottlieb said. “These gun bans should have been overturned years ago. A right delayed is a right denied.”

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut added in a statement to the press, “The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these pivotal cases will finally provide the courts the necessary guidance as it relates to the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The modern semi-automatic rifles banned in Cook County, Connecticut and elsewhere are among the most commonly owned firearms in the country, placing them well within the scope of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, and it’s hard to argue that a type of rifle that potentially outnumbers Ford F-150 trucks in America doesn’t meet that standard.”

Bill Sack, SAF’s senior director of Legal Operations, said via email, “The Second Amendment Foundation is thrilled the Supreme Court has just now agreed to take two of our Assault Weapons Ban challenges, Grant v. Higgins and Viramontes v. Cook County. Both of these cases provide the perfect vehicle for the Supreme Court to roundly reject the categorical bans on commonly owned firearms that Cook County, Illinois, Connecticut, and other gun-control happy jurisdictions around the country have adopted.”

Millions of Commonly Owned Rifles Are at Stake

Meanwhile, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which estimates there are “over 32 million in circulation,” declared in a statement, “these challenges by the Supreme Court is long overdue.”

While it is never clear how the Supreme Court will decide any case, it is not likely the justices would agree to hear these cases if they simply intended to maintain the current status quo.

There was already a strong hint about how the national media may be covering the combined cases. NBC News reported Tuesday, “The measures in question ban what are described by gun violence protection advocates as “assault weapons,” which include AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles.

“AR-15-style weapons have been used in multiple high-profile mass shootings, including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in which 20 children and six adults were killed, as well as the 2022 shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, in which 19 children and two teachers were killed.”

The Supreme Court will convene for its fall session on the first Monday of October. Amy Howe, writing at SCOTUSblog, predicted oral arguments will be heard sometime in the fall.

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

---

from https://ift.tt/b9l6MmR
via IFTTT

Why the US Supreme Court Skipped AR-15s This Term — And Why It’s Coming

“The Supreme Court didn’t skip the AR-15 case this term out of hostility or neglect — they ran out of bandwidth on a generational docket, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh has already telegraphed that the AR-15 case is coming as soon as October 2026.” — Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner Host

I’m often asked why the Supreme Court didn’t take an AR-15 or “large-capacity” magazine case this term. The implication is usually that the Court is dodging the Second Amendment. But there is another, more basic explanation: the Justices have one of the most packed, precedent-setting dockets in living memory, and Chief Justice John Roberts decided to ration the Court’s political capital for now.

To be the smartest person in the room on this, you have to start with the institutional reality. The Supreme Court hears roughly 60 to 70 cases per term on the merits docket. Every granted case demands briefing, oral argument, conference deliberation, opinion drafting, concurrences, and dissents, and the Justices have themselves and a small group of clerks. Behind the merits docket sit thousands of cert petitions a year, each one screened and assessed. And on top of all that is the emergency docket (sometimes called the “shadow docket”), which consists of urgent applications like the one Virginia just filed and lost trying to engage in mid-decade redistricting. Those applications get no oral argument but still consume enormous attention.

The Generational Docket That Crowded Out The AR-15 Ban Cases

Let’s look at what is on the merits docket this term. The Court is deciding birthright citizenship — whether children of illegal aliens and tourist visa holders are automatically American citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s deciding Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Remain in Mexico fight, as well as Mullin v. Doe, the case over President Trump’s authority to revoke the Temporary Protected Status that Biden handed to Haitian nationals. It has already decided Learning Resources v. Trump, addressing the President’s authority concerning tariff policy — a loss for the administration, but a separation-of-powers ruling that will be read by scholars and students for decades to come.

Then there is the executive-power blockbuster: Trump v. Slaughter, teed up to overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935). For ninety years, that New Deal-era precedent has forced Republican presidents to keep Democrat holdovers operating their executive agencies. If Humphrey’s Executor goes into the trash bin of history, the deep state’s statutory immunity largely goes with it.

The Court has already handed down Louisiana v. Callais and Allen v. Caster (Alabama)–two decisions that held federal judges cannot use the Voting Rights Act to force red states to draw racial majority-minority districts where the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments prohibit using race in governmental decisions. Those rulings reshaped the 2026 midterm map and served up a terrible blow to the Democrats.

On the cultural front, Chiles v. Salazar struck down Colorado’s one-way talk-therapy regime as a First Amendment violation, i.e., Colorado law said talk therapists could help individuals transition to a new gender, but those same therapists could not discourage gender transitioning. And West Virginia v. B.P.J. is teed up to decide whether states can keep biological boys out of girls’ high school sports consistent with federal Title IX.

These groundbreaking, precedent-setting cases were sitting in front of the Justices when the AR-15 and magazine cert petitions were being considered.

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 AR-15 Fight Didn’t Make the Cut-For Now

Here is the part the cynics leave out: The Court granted cert in two important Second Amendment cases this term.

United States v. Hemani asks whether the federal government can disarm unlawful users of marijuana under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). Wolford v. Lopez asks whether Hawaii can set as a default law that every place generally open to the public (restaurants, gas stations, laundromats, etc.) is a government-mandated gun free zone unless a CCW holder can first procure express permission to carry from the owners. Both decisions will land by the end of June. Neither is an AR-15 case, but they are precedential rulings that will shape Second Amendment doctrine for years to come.

Remember the distinction I always draw: every case is important to the parties in it, but not every case is precedential. Hemani and Wolford are precedential. The Court took the Second Amendment seriously this term. It just couldn’t take every 2A case.

Next Term Is Likely the AR-15 Term

Justice Kavanaugh signaled in spring 2025 that the Court needed to take an AR-15 case in the next term or two. That phrasing was not accidental. He was looking down the chessboard. With the executive-power, immigration, redistricting, and tariff cases eating up this term, the AR-15 fight likely gets pushed into the October 2026-June 2027 term — exactly the term Kavanaugh had telegraphed.

I think the vehicle is already in the pipeline. The Seventh Circuit’s Barnett case out of Chicago and the Third Circuit’s Cheeseman/ANJRPC case out of Philadelphia both involve state-level “assault weapons” bans, and the Trump DOJ has already weighed in on both. One of those will likely be the cert vehicle.

So when someone asks whether the Supreme Court is afraid of the AR-15 question, my answer is no. The Justices ran out of room this term due to an insanely-significant docket.

The history of the future has yet to be written, but the chessboard tells me the AR-15 case is coming next term — and when it does, the Second Amendment is going to win hugely.

---

About Mark W Smith

Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith, host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on YouTube, is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar. His Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen and in U.S. v. Rahimi.

His most recent book is DISARMED: What the Ukraine War Teaches Americans about the Right to Bear Arms.

---

from https://ift.tt/yRueB4U
via IFTTT