Gatalog Sued By California Over 3D Gun CAD Files

Gatalog Sued By California Over 3D Gun CAD Files iStock-Suebsiri 1010690668.jpg

California Attorney General Rob Bonta and San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu have launched a new legal assault on free speech and the right to keep and bear arms, filing a complaint on February 6, 2026, in San Francisco Superior Court against the Gatalog Foundation Inc., CTRLPew LLC, and individuals Alexander Holladay (known online as “CTRL Pew”), Matthew Larosiere (known online as “Fuddbusters”), and John Elik (known online as “Ivan The Troll”). The suit targets the distribution of digital files, computer code, and instructions for 3D-printing firearms and certain firearm accessories, claiming violations of California Civil Code sections 3273.61 and 3273.625, as well as the state’s broad Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.).

To gun rights and free speech advocates, this lawsuit represents yet another overreach by California officials desperate to suppress technological innovation and individual liberty in the face of advancing 3D printing capabilities.

The core allegation is that Gatalog and related entities make available over 150 designs for “lethal firearms and prohibited firearm accessories” via websites such as thegatalog.com and ctrlpew.com, which link to file-sharing platforms such as Odysee. Prosecutors even boasted that investigators downloaded files from a San Francisco IP address and allegedly built a functioning Glock-style handgun.

But what the complaint really attacks is information; pure speech in the form of code, blueprints, and instructions.

Distributing digital files that describe how to manufacture items using widely available tools is constitutionally protected expression. Code is speech, as federal courts have long recognized in cases involving encryption software and other digital designs. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the principle that the First Amendment shields expressive conduct, including the publication of technical data. Attempts to criminalize or enjoin the dissemination of such information echo failed efforts to block online gun blueprints in the 2010s, when states sued to prevent Defense Distributed from posting files, efforts that ultimately crumbled under free speech scrutiny.

California’s laws at issue prohibit distributing “digital firearm manufacturing code” to unlicensed individuals and, as of January 1, 2026, knowingly aiding or facilitating the “unlawful manufacture of firearms” by unlicensed persons using 3D printers. These statutes are viewpoint-based restrictions that single out disfavored speech about firearms while ignoring similar code for other tools or devices. They also run afoul of the Second Amendment’s core protection of the right to possess arms for self-defense. The Supreme Court’s Bruen (2022) decision demands that gun regulations be consistent with historical tradition. Yet, there’s no 1791 or 1868 analog for banning the sharing of manufacturing instructions in an era before modern manufacturing existed.

The complaint paints a dire picture of “ghost guns” as an escalating crisis, citing recoveries rising from 26 in 2015 to over 11,000 annually (including auto-sears) from 2021 to 2025. It claims 3D-printed firearms are “easy to produce” and “fully assembled in less than a day.” Yet these statistics often lump together traceable and untraceable incidents, and many “ghost guns” are simply homemade firearms built legally by individuals exercising their rights. Federal data from the ATF shows ghost gun recoveries increasing nationally, but correlation isn’t causation; rising numbers may reflect better reporting or law enforcement focus rather than a direct link to online files.

More importantly, the real threat to public safety isn’t informed citizens accessing open-source designs; it’s criminals who disregard laws anyway.

Background checks and serialization requirements target law-abiding people, while bad actors build or acquire weapons illegally regardless of digital availability. 3D printing empowers individuals to exercise self-reliance in manufacturing, much like home gunsmithing has for centuries. Banning code doesn’t stop determined criminals; it only disarms responsible citizens who might use such knowledge for lawful purposes, such as prototyping or personal defense tools, in restrictive jurisdictions.

The defendants, successors to groups like Deterrence Dispensed, operate as a community-driven effort to democratize access to firearm knowledge. They sell related merchandise and solicit donations, activities protected as commercial speech tied to expressive content. The suit’s alter ego and conspiracy claims appear designed to pierce the veil of limited liability and chill association among like-minded individuals.

Matthew Larosiere, an attorney and legal commentator known online as “Fuddbusters,” told AmmoLand that California’s lawsuit hinges on a fundamentally flawed premise:

“California’s hook appears to be ‘The Gatalog Foundation LLC,’ and they tie all the named Defendants to it, and allege the Foundation is responsible, in some way, for all their woes. There is one problem with this. The Gatalog Foundation is an entity I founded with the intent to make a newsletter about gunsmithing. That never happened. The idea stalled, and the newsletter never left the planning stage. The Foundation previously had a bank account with $4 in it, which was closed due to inactivity. Another entity sued the Foundation in the past, but dropped all claims against the Foundation when they learned that the Foundation was nothing more than a stalled prospect of a hobby journal. Again, this would have been obvious to California if they had bothered to do any kind of reasonable pre-suit investigation.”

This case fits a pattern of California officials targeting 3D gun innovators. Past suits against Defense Distributed and others sought to block the distribution of files, often failing on jurisdictional or constitutional grounds. By framing code as “facilitation” of crime, the state attempts an end run around First Amendment protections, similar to how some jurisdictions have sought to hold platforms liable for user-generated content.

Pro-2A advocates see this as an existential fight: If governments can ban the sharing of manufacturing data, what’s next, prohibiting books on gunsmithing, CNC milling tutorials, or even chemistry texts for reloading? The right to keep and bear arms includes the practical ability to acquire and maintain them, which, in the digital age, encompasses information on how to lawfully produce them.

The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, civil penalties, and other relief to shut down these operations. Supporters of liberty hope the court recognizes this as censorship dressed as public safety. The fight over 3D-printed firearms isn’t just about plastic guns; it’s about whether Americans retain the freedom to innovate, share knowledge, and defend themselves without government gatekeepers deciding what information is too dangerous.

In an era when technology empowers individuals, California’s latest salvo threatens to drag the First and Second Amendments into the Stone Age. The Gatalog case could set a dangerous precedent, but if history is any guide, courts will ultimately hold that code is speech and that the right to arms cannot be nullified by banning bytes.

Robert Cekada Poised to become Next ATF Director After Confirmation Hearing

Defense Distributed Wins A Preliminary Injunction Against ATF’s “Ghost Gun” Rule

---

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/93WF7ec
via IFTTT

Governors’ Forum at 2026 SHOT Show | VIDEO

From Left to Right: Governor Pillen of Nebraska, Governor Gordon of Wyoming, Governor Lombardo of Nevada, Governor Sanders of Arkansas, Governor Rhoden of South Dakota, Governor Little of Idaho, and Governor  Gianforte of Montana.

At the Governors’ Forum during the 2026 SHOT Show, the eight governors present answered questions about how they could counter attacks against rights protected by the Second Amendment and against the firearms and associated industry. After the introduction by NSSF Larry Keane and remarks by White House Counsel David Warrington, the moderator, Shermichael Singleton, directed questions to the governors.

Nevada Governor Lombardo was asked about the Cyberattack that paralysed Nevada gun store sales for more than two weeks. Governor Lombardo gave a detailed explanation. It was the internal state systems that were hacked. No ransom was paid. The lesson learned was: Do not silo all systems into a single domain.

Governor Sanders of Arkansas praised the firearms and ammunition industry and mentioned her sons love of hunting and fishing vs staring at screens. She stated hunting and fishing are not the most important thing. Governor Sanders said:

If you do not have the right to bear arms, then all of the rights you enjoy can easily be taken away.

Governor Rhoden of South Dakota mentioned the passage of a bill last year to disallow the coding of firearms on credit card purchases and his support for deregulation of silencers. Governor Rhoden said:

Its the Left who, by any means possible, want to eliminate our Second Amendment rights. 

Governor Gianforte of Montana talked of his program to convince firearms and ammunition manufacturers to move from Colorado to Montana. From the Governor:

So I personally cold called all the major manufacturers in Colorado, and my message was simple: Do you want to move back to America?

Wyoming Governor Gordon spoke about the purpose of the commerce clause in the United State Constitution is to prevent individual states from impeding commerce between the states. This should apply to the firearms industry. From Governor Gordon:

“That’s one of the very few things the federal government is supposed to do is to make sure that  Arkansas can’t cut off Wyoming.Not that you would…” (speaking to Governor Sanders of Arkansas)

Governor Pillen of Nebraska was asked about the unicameral legislative system in Nebraska. Governor Pillen spoke of how important it was to do the right thing instead of what was required to be re-elected. He spoke of the importance of reducing regulation:

 “We have to keep getting government out of our hair.”  “I have not met a Nebraskan yet who wants to be told what to do.”

Governor Little of Idaho talked about the need to educate a labor force for the recreational industry in rural Idaho.

“You don’t over tax them, you don’t over regulate them, if you give them the labor force they need, they will thrive.” 

The moderator, Shermichael Singleton, did an excellent job of controlling the forum. The governors were all from Red (Republican) states. The forum was limited to an hour. The governors could have each taken up the whole hour, so distributing time among them was an important job.

There was friendly banter among the governors about who had the best business climate, the best hunting, the best parties and the best bourbon. A major theme of the forum was the necessity of limiting federal power and using state power to counter the attack on rights protected by the Second Amendment. As expected, there was little disagreement on the necessity of doing so.

Governor Gianforte of Montana reminded everyone to remember there have been difficult times in the United State before, and we have managed to keep the Republic. He used the term “chronological snobbery”. Maintaining the Republic has always been a difficult task. From the Governor:

The availability of social media and the insincerity of our main stream media has amplified the divisions that exist between us. For my part I try not to exacerbate those differences and focus on those things we have in common. 

Governor  Rhoden of South Dakota said they are looking to find ways to roll back regulations by the federal government, and the current administration offers a window of opportunity to do so.

---

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/MpU8Zxq
via IFTTT

Virginia House Pushes Multiple Anti-Gun Bills to Senate

Virginia Democrats Prepare Sweeping Gun Control Push. 

In a sweeping move that has alarmed gun rights advocates across the Commonwealth, Virginia’s Democrat-controlled House of Delegates recently passed a package of restrictive firearm bills on February 5, 2026, advancing what critics call the most aggressive assault on Second Amendment rights in state history. These measures, now headed to the Senate, target commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, standard-capacity magazines, and law-abiding citizens’ ability to exercise their constitutional protections. From a pro-Second Amendment perspective, these proposals represent a dangerous infringement on the fundamental right to self-defense, disproportionately affecting responsible owners while doing little to address criminal misuse of guns.

The centerpiece of the package, House Bill 217 (sponsored by Del. Dan Helmer, D-Fairfax), would prohibit the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, or transfer of so-called “assault firearms” and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices (magazines holding more than 10 rounds manufactured after July 1, 2026).

Violations would be classified as a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and fines up to $2,500, with an additional three-year prohibition on possessing any firearms following conviction. The bill defines “assault firearms” broadly to include many popular semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns based on cosmetic features such as pistol grips, threaded barrels, adjustable stocks, or detachable magazines, which are commonly found on firearms used for lawful purposes such as hunting, sport shooting, and home defense. The Senate version excludes all pistols.

Grandfathering applies only to firearms manufactured before July 1, 2026, meaning future Virginians would be barred from acquiring these arms. Even more troubling, the bill criminalizes possession of such firearms by anyone under 21, regardless of manufacture date, with limited exceptions. Pro-2A groups argue this age restriction ignores Supreme Court precedents affirming that young adults are protected under the Second Amendment, as seen in cases emphasizing “common use” firearms.

Organizations like the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) have condemned HB 217 as unconstitutional, pointing to the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which protect arms “in common use” for lawful purposes. AR-15-style rifles, the primary targets, are among the most popular firearms in America, owned by millions for self-defense and recreation. Banning their future sale and transfer would effectively phase out a class of protected arms, critics say, setting a dangerous precedent for eroding constitutional rights incrementally.

Compounding the threat, companion measures expand government overreach:

• Bills imposing stricter storage requirements in homes with minors or prohibited persons, turning accidental lapses into misdemeanors.
• Expanded civil liability for the firearm industry, allowing lawsuits that could bankrupt manufacturers and dealers over lawful products.
• Restrictions on firearms in hospitals, college campuses, and other public spaces.
• New penalties for so-called “ghost guns” and unattended firearms in vehicles.
• Proposals to limit out-of-state concealed handgun permit reciprocity, potentially stripping Virginians of carry rights when traveling.
• Some bills even float punitive taxes, such as an 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition or a $500 tax on suppressors, devices legally used for hearing protection and widely supported for reducing noise pollution.

Republicans in the House, now a diminished minority following recent elections, fought vigorously against the package, warning of constitutional violations and ineffective crime-fighting. They highlighted that criminals ignore laws, while these restrictions burden law-abiding citizens, hunters, competitive shooters, and families relying on semi-automatic firearms for protection in rural Virginia or high-crime areas.

Gun rights advocates point out Virginia’s existing laws already include red flag provisions and other measures that have done nothing to lessen crime. Adding bans on common arms ignores the root causes of violence like mental health failures, soft-on-crime policies, and socioeconomic factors. Instead of targeting features or magazines, they argue, lawmakers should focus on prosecuting violent offenders, whom Democrats have scaled back minimum punishments for crimes such as rape and child sexual exploitation.

As these bills move to the Senate, pro-2A Virginians are mobilizing. Groups like VCDL urge contacting legislators to oppose the measures, emphasizing that the right to keep and bear arms is not negotiable. With potential passage under a favorable administration, 2026 could mark a turning point where Virginia shifts from a historically gun-friendly state to one resembling restrictive regimes like California or New York, states with higher crime rates despite heavy regulation.

Law-abiding gun owners in Arcola and across the Commonwealth must remain vigilant. These laws do not enhance safety; they erode liberty. The Second Amendment exists precisely to protect against such government overreach, ensuring citizens can defend themselves, their families, and their freedoms. Contact your senators today; your rights depend on it.

The Federalist Raises the Supreme Court Conundrum

Virginia: Gun Control by Ambush: Why These BAD Bills Are Being Held Back Until It’s Too Late ~ VIDEO

---

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/TPvx5iJ
via IFTTT

President Trump’s ATF Pick Clears Senate Hearing Easily

Robert Cekada, President Donald Trump’s pick to run the ATF, appears before the Senate Judiciary Committee Wednesday. (Photo courtesy United States Senate).

New York state native turned Floridian Robert Cekada spent just over two hours Wednesday along with four judicial candidates testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley.

By all accounts, Cekada passed the test, and he will likely become the next Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“Mr. Cekada has had an extensive career protecting Americans at the state and federal level,” Grassley said. “He served a decade as a police officer, receiving numerous awards. He has also spent two decades at the ATF. He knows how to lead the Bureau because he’s worked tirelessly throughout the chain of command.”

Grassley noted that his committee has received dozens of letters endorsing Cekada for the ATF leadership position, and that Cekada worked closely with his office after an ATF whistleblower revealed ATF’s misclassification scheme and other improper practices.

“Mr. Cekada worked closely with my staff to bring this resolution forward, to make sure no more taxpayer dollars were wasted,” Grassley said. “I commend his fine leadership and aggressive actions to find a solution for this brave whistleblower, and I encourage him to allow more whistleblowers to come forward, to help him understand what’s going on in the Bureau.”

Cekada started his law enforcement career in 1992 as a cadet for the New York City Police Department, where in 1999 he became a detective assigned to the department’s Organized Crime Control Bureau. He has also worked as an officer in Florida, until he joined the ATF in 2005, as a special agent in the Baltimore Field Division. His rise up ATF’s chain of command was swift. In May of last year, he became the ATF’s Deputy Director—it’s number two position.

Cekada’s testimony

Senator Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, introduced Cekada to the committee.

“I’ve had the opportunity to get to know Rob, who is in my view the consummate lawman,” Moran said. “He’s worked beats in New York City, rose through the ranks, and believes in enforcement of law and public safety.”

Moran testified that the ATF is now an agency that insures violent criminals are jailed. He quoted former Attorney General William Barr, who described the ATF as a “can-do agency,” which is worthy of support.

“Robert Cekada is a great nominee to be the next director of the ATF,” Moran said. “I hope you find him favorable to serve in this capacity.”

Cekada testified that his parents fled from communist Yugoslavia in 1966 and became American citizens in 1973.

“They are no longer with us,” Cekada said. “They believed deeply in what this country represents.”

He told the Senate committee that his entire career has focused on “keeping people safe.”

“ATF’s dire mission is public safety. If confirmed, my foremost concern will be making sure ATF supports President Trump’s mandate to make America safer by remaining relentlessly focused on violent crime.”

Legitimate gun owners, Cekada stressed, can stop worrying about the ATF.

“ATF’s mission is not a burden to lawful gun owners or to undermine the Second Amendment,” he said. “The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional guarantee, and I am committed to protecting and preserving it. Effective law enforcement and respect for civil liberties are not competing goals. They are inseparable obligations. I am equally committed to supporting the men and women of the ATF. They deserve clear mission focus and strong leadership.”

Senators’ questions

Senator Grassley led the committee in questioning Cekada.

“What are your top priorities for the Bureau, if confirmed?” he asked.

“The top priorities for the ATF will remain violent crime, illegal use of firearms, explosives and the illegal use of arson,” Cekada said in response. “We will modernize critical systems, forms and licensing systems, which are over 25 years old and unnecessarily burden people, and we will follow President Trump’s Second Amendment order to review all of ATF’s rules to make sure we don’t infringe upon Americans unnecessarily.”

Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois told Cekada he had heard that two-thirds of ATF agents, 1,178 of 2,500, had been assigned to enforce immigration.

Cekada said the actual number was around 75 to 100.

“The remainder focus of fighting violent crime throughout the country on a daily basis,” Cekada said. “I support using agents to fight violent crime, specifically fighting gangs.”

Republican Senator Mike Lee of Utah asked about restrictions in place on suppressors, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns.

“From the ATF’s perspective, the ATF is bound by law,” Cekada said. “If Congress moves suppressors out of the (Gun Control Act), the ATF would be supportive of that decision.”

Senator Marsha Blackburn, R-Tennessee, brought up the Memphis Safe Task Force, which has cut crime in the city by 50-percent.

“ATF is a proud partner of the Memphis Safe Task Force,” Cekada said. “Our small team is a significant contributor. We have the ability to use crime gun intelligence. ATF is not driving around neighborhoods or going through people’s homes looking to burden families with our enforcement actions.”

Senator Corey Booker, D-New Jersey, like Senator Durbin, falsely believed that most of Cekada’s ATF agents were assigned to the Department of Homeland Security to enforce immigration.

As proof, Booker mentioned a news article he had read in the Trace—a notoriously anti-gun online group paid for by former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg. Booker said the Trace story quoted a former ATF agent named Hamilton. He had the story placed into the Senate record.

“I have no clue about who this Mr. Hamilton is, but I challenge his statement,” Cekada said. “We do have only about 100 people working immigration enforcement.”

California’s Democratic Senator Adam Schiff asked if ATF is seeing a trend with “ghost guns,” which Cekada said the ATF now refers to as “privately made firearms.”

Cekada said his agents have seen privately made firearms and auto-sears, but they are primarily found in jurisdictions with strict firearm restrictions. ATF’s laboratory located in Maryland has found a way to identify them based on their polymers.

Missouri Republican Senator Josh Hawley touted some of the country’s strongest Second Amendment protections found in his home state, which came under fire during the Biden Administration.

“Biden’s DOJ asked a sheriff for a list of his CCW holders,” Hawley said. “Why do you need records of CCW holders in Missouri? Can you commit that under your leadership ATF will go in a different direction than the last administration? That you’ll focus your law enforcement resources on criminals? As opposed to law abiding citizens who have rights under both the federal and state constitutions.”

“Senator, I can assure you that under my watch the ATF has been 1,000-percent successful in going after people who have committed violent crimes. We’re not here to burden the American citizen who has a complete right to exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms, and we will not do that in the future if I am so confirmed,” Cekada said. “Unlike some prior ATF directors, I will still be a sworn law enforcement officer. I’ve done this job from a ground level police officer to a task force officer with the Attorney General. I’m not telling people to go out and make the cases. I’ve made the cases myself. I know what it takes. Because we’re a small agency, I’ve worked with every ATF agent that’s out there making cases. We all know each other. We know to stay focused on violent criminals. That’s what you pay us for, and we will continue to do that.”

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.

ATF Registers a Potato as a Suppressor | VIDEO

The Federalist Raises the Supreme Court Conundrum

---

About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

---

from https://ift.tt/UD45bZP
via IFTTT

ATF Warns of Hoax Homeland Security Letter ‘Suspending Second Amendment’

Is the intent to sow mistrust between the administration and gun owners, and to do so before the midterms?

“Federal authorities say they are investigating a report about a bogus letter purportedly written by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to at least one Vermont gun store claiming the U.S. Government was temporarily suspending the Second Amendment right to have guns,” the Vermont Daily Chronicle reported Monday.

It goes beyond Vermont. A version of the letter targeted to Houston-area Federal Firearms Licensees is embedded below.

“Constitutional rights are a privilege for American citizens, not a guarantee,” the purported “Notice of Enhanced Protection Policies for Homeland Security Agents,” dated Jan. 26, begins. Citing its purpose “to better safeguard the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents during upcoming deployment actions,” it declares, “the United States Government is instituting a temporary suspension of the rights granted by the Second Ammendment [sic] of the United State Constitution.”

Not knowing how to spell “Amendment” is a major clue. It then mandates the FFL and employees to:

• [I]mmediately provide a full inventory and record of any and all firearms located on site, along with a log of any personnel with access to said firearms. Failure to comply or providing an inaccurate account may subject you to criminal prosecution.
• Declare firearms being caried and surrender them. “Failure to do so in a timely manner will be interpreted as a deliberate act of domestic terrorism, which may result in both prosecution and aggressive response by government officers.”
• Display the notice “until rescinded,” noting “Removal … will be considered destruction of government property and will result in prosecution.”

This is obviously a clumsy attempt at stirring the pot and creating divisions between the administration and Second Amendment supporters. That it follows high-profile events in Minneapolis and ill-conceived statements by administration officials disparaging armed citizens makes looking into who is behind this spreading effort and their political motivations worth investigating, including if the intent has anything to do with sowing distrust before the midterms.

It didn’t work in Vermont, where the targeted FFL, Green Mountain Sporting Goods,  immediately smelled a rat and contacted ATF, which issued a statement that it is “aware of an obviously fraudulent letter” and encouraging “questionable correspondence” to be reported.

There was a similar response to the Houston letter, with this email accompanying it:

—– Forwarded Message —–

From: “atffflalert@atf.gov” <atffflalert@atf.gov>

Sent: Thursday, February 5, 2026 at 12:23:02 PM EST

Subject: ATF FFL ALERT – FFL NOTICE HOAX

This is an important message from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. We are aware of the “Notice of Enhanced Protection Policies for Homeland Security Agents” placed on an FFL’s door. We have confirmed with HSI this notice is a hoax. ATF is committed to working with our FFL partners. If you have any questions, please contact your local ATF office. See attached for an example of the hoax.

It remains to be seen if anyone in the FFL community will be dumb enough to fall for this. If any gun store has the fake notice posted, perhaps that’s an indication it’s not a safe place to entrust with business or personal data. There’s also no word at this time on what DHS and the FBI intend to do about this should they be able to identify the perpetrator(s).

---

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/D3AH8ZO
via IFTTT

Democrats Push Ammo Sales Ban while Courts Question Similar State Restrictions

Democrats Push Ammunition Sales Ban While Federal Courts Question Similar State Restrictions. img Duncan Johnson

Congressional Democrats have revived legislation that would effectively eliminate online ammunition sales nationwide, introducing the measure just weeks before federal courts prepare to reconsider constitutional challenges to similar state restrictions already facing judicial scrutiny.

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) unveiled the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act on January 20, 2026, alongside Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-MD). Filed as H.R. 7166, the legislation would mandate that federally licensed ammunition dealers verify photo identification in person for every internet purchase. The proposal, which resurrects earlier Everytown-backed measures from Watson Coleman, includes an additional surveillance component requiring vendors to report any sales exceeding 1,000 rounds within five consecutive days directly to the U.S. Attorney General.

“Public safety must come before convenience for an unregulated market,” Watson Coleman declared in her statement.“Americans send us to Washington because it is our job to protect them, not mourn them.”

The legislation arrives as federal courts wrestle with precisely these questions in Rhode v. Bonta, a nearly decade-long constitutional challenge to California’s ammunition background check system. The case, supported by the National Rifle Association and California Rifle & Pistol Association, attacks the Golden State’s first in the nation point-of-sale background check regime that voters approved through Proposition 63 in 2016.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	CCI Blazer Brass 9mm 115 Gr FMJ 1000 Rounds (Loose Packed in a Box)	Ammunition Depot	$ 307.49 $ 235.00
	CCI - Blazer - 9mm - 115 Grain - JHP - 1000	True Shot Ammo	$ 487.44
	CCI Blazer 9mm 115gr FMJ Aluminum Case Ammunition, 50 Round Box - 3509	Palmetto State Armory	$ 14.99 $ 12.99
	CCI - Blazer - 9mm - 115 Grain - FMJ - Bulk Pack - 1000	True Shot Ammo	$ 324.29

California’s framework, which took effect July 1, 2019, requires ammunition purchasers to complete background checks through one of four avenues, each involving fees ranging from $5 to $31 and unpredictable delays spanning minutes to days.

Constitutional challenges to this measure achieved significant success through two levels of federal courts. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez permanently enjoined enforcement of California’s ammunition background check requirements on January 30, 2024, concluding they “have no historical pedigree” and “violate the Second Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms.” The decision found that tens of thousands of law-abiding gun owners faced annual rejections based on technical errors in California’s background check system.

A three judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed this ruling on July 24, 2025, in a 2 to 1 decision. Applying the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the panel concluded that California’s ammunition background check regime “meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms” and therefore implicates the Second Amendment’s plain text. The panel determined that California failed to demonstrate the regulation’s consistency with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

However, California successfully petitioned for en banc review, which the Ninth Circuit granted on December 1, 2025. This order vacated the three judge panel’s ruling and scheduled oral arguments for the week of March 23, 2026. The en banc review means the entire appeals court will reconsider the case, creating uncertainty about whether the constitutional protections recognized by the panel will survive.

In a striking development, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief on January 5, 2026, supporting the plaintiffs’ challenge to California’s ammunition regime.

The brief’s language is remarkable in its directness, stating that California’s laws “do not pass even the ‘laugh test'” and the system “evoke[s] a convoluted board game, not a serious attempt to further a legitimate purpose.” The DOJ argues that the regulation is “designed to burden the exercise of the right to bear arms” and that “a firearms regulation that seeks to frustrate the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms is a per se violation of the Second Amendment.”

Additionally, a coalition of 26 states filed an amicus brief supporting the challenge, contending that both the background check and anti-importation requirements “burden the fundamental right to armed self defense by interfering with ammunition purchases” and are “unprecedented in our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

This creates a remarkable situation where Democratic legislators propose federal adoption of a state system that the federal executive branch actively opposes in litigation. The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act would nationalize precisely the type of regulatory scheme that federal courts have concluded violates the Second Amendment.

Currently, six states maintain ammunition background check or dealer transfer requirements for direct-to-consumer sales. California and New York operate point of sale systems, while Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey require background checks.

The constitutional vulnerability of ammunition background check requirements under the Bruen framework presents formidable obstacles to both California’s existing regime and proposed federal legislation. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on historical tradition and its rejection of interest balancing tests have fundamentally altered Second Amendment jurisprudence, making novel restrictions like point of sale ammunition checks difficult to defend.

Despite its sponsors’ stated concerns about public safety, H.R. 7166 faces insurmountable political obstacles in the current Congress. The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Jim Jordan from Ohio, who has consistently prioritized Second Amendment protections. Republicans hold a narrow 218 to 213 majority in the House.

For gun rights advocates, the simultaneous introduction of H.R. 7166 and the pending Rhode v. Bonta decision represents a defining moment in Second Amendment jurisprudence. If federal courts continue recognizing that ammunition access is inseparable from the constitutional right to bear arms, legislative attempts to impose burdensome restrictions on lawful purchasers may finally face the constitutional scrutiny they have long evaded.

Alex Pretti Shooting Proved the Left Is Lawless — and the Right Is Getting Weak on the Second Amendment

Gun Grabber Propaganda Makes Americans Less Safe (Again)

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/Mh37wWx
via IFTTT

Recollections of Decades-Old Crime Omit Key Details about Assailant

Left unexplored is how the attacker and the victim both favor citizen disarmament.

Mary Jo Buttafuoco is in the news again. Almost 34 years after being shot in the face with an illegally possessed and carried .25 caliber handgun by “Long Island Lolita” Amy Fisher, a teenage mistress of her cheating husband, the story has been resurrected, and no doubt brought to the attention of a new audience, with the January release of a biopic on Lifetime.

The point here is not to repeat a story we can find elsewhere, nor to heap judgment on Fisher, who went on after her prison sentence to exploit her notoriety in the “adult” film industry. Still, her mindset is relevant to understanding the anti-gun political advocacy she went on to promote.

“What I’ve learned over the years is that Amy Fisher is a narcissist — and narcissists don’t change,” Buttafuoco told Fox News Digital. “It’s always been about her. She doesn’t care one iota about what she’s done. It’s also inexcusable for any adult man to take advantage of a teenager. In that sense, she was a victim, but it doesn’t excuse what she did afterward.”

“People are angry at me because I’m a millionaire,” Fisher, who had described Buttafuoco as “a nonentity” and claimed “no sympathy” for her victim, told Steppin’ Out magazine. “But guess what? So is Mary Jo! She made more millions off of what I did than what I made.”

With that as a backdrop, in between capitalizing on her notoriety through selling her story and her sex tapes, Fisher served a brief stint as an opinion columnist, where she advocated for the government disarming those of us who haven’t shot innocent people in the face.

From my Aug. 2005 GUNS Magazine column “Look Who’s Demanding Gun Control”, also featuring anti-gun statements by the suppliers of guns and ammunition to the Columbine killers, and profiles of a Million Morn March Washington DC rally sponsor who paralyzed an innocent man with an “illegal” handgun, and a Million Mom March chapter president found in possession of illegal drugs and a handgun with its serial number filed off by police investigating a series of drive-by shootings:

“Assault weapons were designed for military use,” [Fisher] declared in support of extending the federal ban, even though none of the weapons affected have select-fire capabilities. “If a law-abiding citizen has such a yearning to possess one of these weapons, then let that person join the Marines.”

That column in question has disappeared from the internet, so you’ll just have to take my word for it and the fact that my column claims have remained unchallenged for over 20 years. But here’s a corroborating report that substantiated her views on guns at the time:

“Amy Fisher to Begin Anti-Gun Campaign,” The Associated Press reported in 2003. “Amy Fisher, who set off a frenzy of tabloid headlines a decade ago when she shot her lover’s wife, celebrated the end of her parole by announcing her intention to work for causes aimed at keeping handguns away from minors.”

Making something that’s already illegal more illegal has been the siren call of “commonsense gun safety laws” that has thus far failed to provide a solution that actually works. All it ever does is create more infringements against peaceable citizens.

And proving that she’s not that deep a thinker herself, Fisher’s victim apparently shares her affinity for citizen disarmament.

“I think assault rifles should not exist,” Mary Jo Buttafuoco told Oxygen in 2018. “These are weapons of war. This is to inflict as much damage and pain and suffering in the shortest period of time. We don’t need them. At all.”

Whatever.

By all indications, Fisher tries to live a quiet life today under a different name. That’s fine, the purpose is not to pursue her or to make what has been a difficult life even more so, or to hold past actions and statements against her. Rather, with her story recalled by recent related publicity, the purpose here is to remind readers that, then and now, aberrant people aren’t constrained by the laws most of us strive to observe.

More laws against us have no effect on choices made by them.

The timeless truism is that the people most insistent on controlling us continually prove to be incapable or unwilling to control themselves.

Gun Grabber Propaganda Makes Americans Less Safe (Again)

The Federalist Raises the Supreme Court Conundrum

---

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/zqQKi6d
via IFTTT