New Jersey State Police Sued Over Denied Records Requests on Retired Cop Carry Permits

John Petrolino is suing the New Jersey State Police over denied records requests tied to retired law enforcement carry permit data. iStock-2260077315

New Jersey’s carry-permit regime has already raised serious questions about fairness, transparency, and whether politically connected classes get treated differently from ordinary citizens. Now, journalist and AmmoLand contributor John Petrolino is taking that fight into court.

Petrolino has filed suit in New Jersey Superior Court against the New Jersey State Police over repeated denials of records requests seeking data tied to retired law enforcement officer permits to carry handguns. According to the complaint, he requested application records from 2024 and 2025 with personal identifying information stripped out, specifically to examine demographic and outcome data in the retired-officer carry program.

That matters because New Jersey already makes demographic information available for “civilian” permit holders, but according to the complaint, it does not provide a comparable public database for retired officers. Petrolino’s lawsuit argues there is no legitimate basis for releasing demographic information about ordinary permit applicants while blocking similar information about retired law enforcement.

This is exactly the kind of double standard gun owners have come to expect in anti-gun states. When average citizens apply for permits, the state insists the process is neutral and objective. But when someone asks for records that could show whether favored classes receive better treatment, suddenly the curtain drops.

According to the complaint, Petrolino tailored his request to avoid disclosure of personal details, consenting to redactions that would remove names and other identifying information. The point was not to expose private individuals. The point was to determine whether the state is administering a carry-permit program fairly and consistently, especially when it comes to race, geography, disqualifying criteria, and appeals.

As the CCRKBA release notes, the complaint states: “Plaintiff and the public has a strong interest in ascertaining the relationship between the demographics of carry permit holders amongst the general public and retired law enforcement officers including but not limited to county location, race, sex and the effect of potentially disqualifying criteria in the application population as well as the success rate for the appeal process within the New Jersey State Police.”

If New Jersey can publish data on one class of applicants, it should not be able to hide comparable information for another class of people simply because the second class wore a badge.

The lawsuit says the State Police denied the request under New Jersey Administrative Code 13:54-1.15, which the agency says makes firearms permit applications and records reflecting issuance or denial confidential. But Petrolino’s complaint pushes back on that reading and also argues the state failed to properly handle the records denial under OPRA procedures. The suit further claims he is entitled to the records under New Jersey’s common-law right of access and alleges a violation of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.

The complaint argues that court intervention is warranted to force production of the records and potentially award counsel fees. In the filing’s words, “Having established Petrolino was deprived of his common law right of access the New Jersey Civil Rights Act was violated, the clear remedy is injunctive relief compelling the production of the records to Petrolino…”

CCRKBA, while not a party to the case, is publicly backing Petrolino. The organization’s release says he had previously reported that Black New Jersey permit-to-carry applicants were denied at more than double the rate of white applicants for non-criminal or subjective reasons, and that he sought retired-officer permit statistics to continue digging into the issue.

Petrolino did not mince words in the CCRKBA release, stating: “The NJSP has denied countless records requests that I’ve made over the years, never fulfilling even one. When I emailed them about these denials, an unnamed person at NJSP basically told me to sue them — so here we are.”

That quote says a lot about the broader climate in New Jersey. The state has spent years treating the right to bear arms as something to be rationed, delayed, managed, and discouraged. A government that is confident in the fairness of its permitting system should not be terrified of anonymized demographic data.

Alan Gottlieb drove that point home in the same release, saying, “Records concerning the retired police officer permits are about as public as you can get. Do they have the same level of perceived bias in their permitting statistics? Or perhaps worse yet, do they not? The public has a right to know this information.”

For gun owners, this case goes beyond one journalist and one records request. It goes to a bigger problem that repeatedly shows up in hostile jurisdictions: one set of rules for insiders, another for everybody else. Retired law enforcement officers may well have lawful pathways to carry under state and federal law, but that does not mean the administration of those permits should be immune from scrutiny. If New Jersey is applying different standards to carry permits, the public deserves to see it. If not, the state should have nothing to fear from disclosure.

The suit, captioned John Petrolino v. New Jersey State Police, & Trooper “X”, was filed in Mercer County on February 27, 2026, as an OPRA summary action. At this stage, the allegations in the complaint remain allegations, and the court has not ruled on the merits. But the case is shaping up as a direct test of whether New Jersey can hide permit data when that data might reveal uncomfortable truths about how the state treats armed citizens versus retired government insiders.

For a state that claims to value transparency and equal treatment, the answer should be simple. If the government is going to regulate a constitutional right, it should not get to keep the public in the dark about how that power is being used.

New Jersey Scrambles to Save AR-15, Magazine Bans After Benson Ruling

---

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

FPC Sues New York Over Times Square Gun Ban

FPC Sues to End New York’s Times Square Gun Ban iStock-1442914010

In a direct challenge to one of New York’s most visible gun-control measures, a licensed handgun carrier and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a federal lawsuit alleging that the state’s ban on firearms in Times Square violates the Second Amendment. The complaint, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, accuses top state and city officials of enforcing an unconstitutional restriction that effectively creates a “Constitution-free zone” in one of the world’s most famous public spaces.

Plaintiff Yehuda Goldberger, a resident of Hillburn, Rockland County, holds valid concealed-carry licenses issued by both New York City and Rockland County. A law-abiding executive assistant who is not prohibited from owning firearms under state or federal law, Goldberger walks through Times Square several times a year for work and personal reasons. The ban forces him to disarm in the bustling district, leaving him unable to carry a loaded, operable handgun for immediate self-defense despite his desire and regular practice of doing so elsewhere in his daily life.

“He is subject to Defendants’ enforcement of the State’s restrictions on his right to bear arms in public,” the complaint states.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Glock 19 V 4.02" 9mm (3)10rd Pistol w/ FS, Black - PV1950201	Palmetto State Armory	$ 599.99 $ 539.99
	Glock 19 Gen5 FS 9mm Modular Optic System (MOS) 15rd Pistol	Bereli	$ 639.00
	Glock 19 V 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 15+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 539.00
	Glock 19 V 4.02" 9mm FS (3)15rd Pistol, Black - PV1950203	Palmetto State Armory	$ 599.99 $ 539.99

Joining Goldberger is the Firearms Policy Coalition, a national nonprofit that advocates for Second Amendment rights. FPC claims representational standing on behalf of its New York members, including Goldberger, who are directly harmed by the ban. The organization argues it may also pursue equitable relief under Ex parte Young principles.

Defendants are New York Attorney General Letitia James, New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch, and Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, all of whom are sued in their official capacities.

The suit targets New York Penal Law § 265.01-e(2)(t), enacted July 1, 2022, as part of the state’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), passed in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That statute designates “the area commonly known as Times Square” a “sensitive location” where even licensed carriers may not possess a firearm if they know or reasonably should know they are in the restricted zone.

New York City Administrative Code § 10-315(a) defines the precise boundaries: a multi-block tract in Manhattan roughly bounded by West 40th and West 53rd Streets and Eighth and Ninth Avenues, including sidewalks and streets.

Violators face class E felony charges punishable by up to four years in prison and a $5,000 fine, plus potential lifetime loss of firearm rights under state and federal law. “The Times Square Carry Ban unlawfully deprives individuals of the right to keep and bear arms in a public place where the need for self-defense may arise,” the complaint declares, arguing the restriction “nullif[ies] the Supreme Court’s holding in Bruen.”

At the heart of the plaintiffs’ argument is Bruen’s core holding: the Second Amendment’s plain text “presumptively guarantees … a right to ‘bear’ arms in public for self-defense,” and any regulation must be “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The Supreme Court has explicitly warned States against defining “sensitive places” too broadly to include “places where people typically congregate and where law-enforcement and other public-safety professionals are presumptively available,” because that would “eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.”

The complaint contends Times Square, described as an arbitrary collection of city blocks contiguous with the rest of Manhattan, lacks any historical analogue for a total carry prohibition.

Founding-era “sensitive places” such as legislatures, courthouses, and polling sites typically featured actual government-provided armed security. Times Square has none: no metal detectors, no controlled entry points, just the ordinary police presence found throughout New York City.

The filing cites scholarly analyses concluding that historical tradition limited restrictions to carry “with intent to terrify,” not blanket bans on peaceable carriage in public squares.

Crime data further undermines safety justifications. Recent NYPD CompStat reports and news accounts document shootings, assaults, and larcenies in Times Square at rates comparable to nearby Midtown districts. A fatal shooting occurred near a 7-Eleven in February 2026; three people, including a tourist, were wounded in August 2025. The ban, plaintiffs argue, does nothing to reduce violence while disarming law-abiding citizens who need protection most.

The lawsuit directly asks the court to disagree with the Second Circuit’s 2025 decision in Frey v. City of New York, which upheld the Times Square and subway bans as consistent with historical regulations of crowded public venues. “Frey was wrongly decided,” the complaint asserts, urging a stricter application of Bruen’s history-and-tradition test.

FPC President Brandon Combs issued a blunt statement upon filing: “FPC filed this case to end New York’s Times Square gun ban and free New Yorkers from anti-rights tyrants like Letitia James. Times Square isn’t a Constitution-free zone, and the government can’t disarm peaceable people who carry for self-defense on public sidewalks and streets. This unconstitutional ban violates the rights of hundreds of thousands of people every day, so we will force the State to respect the Second Amendment—whether they like it or not.”

The single-count complaint invokes 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of civil rights under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Plaintiffs demand:

• A declaratory judgment that the Times Square provision is unconstitutional on its face and as applied;
• Permanent injunctive relief barring enforcement by the defendants and their agents;
• Attorneys’ fees and costs under § 1988; and
• Any other relief the court deems just.

The case is being handled by attorneys from Cooper & Kirk, PLLC, a firm with a track record of successful Second Amendment litigation. It joins a growing wave of post-Bruen challenges targeting expansive “sensitive places” lists that critics say have turned much of urban America into carry-free zones.

New York officials had no immediate comment on the new filing, but the state has previously defended the CCIA as essential for public safety in densely populated areas. Gun-control advocates echoed that view after the Frey ruling, arguing most New Yorkers oppose armed strangers in tourist hubs like Times Square.

Legal observers say the suit tests how far lower courts will go in applying Bruen to modern urban environments. A victory for Goldberger and FPC could force New York to redraw its sensitive-locations map, potentially opening sidewalks in Times Square, the subway system, and other tourist districts to licensed carriers. A loss would reinforce the Second Circuit’s more deferential approach, likely prompting further Supreme Court review.

For Goldberger, the stakes are immediate and personal. “The right to bear arms is not limited to one’s home or rural areas but extends to public spaces where individuals may face threats,” the complaint emphasizes. As millions of tourists and workers continue to stream through Times Square each year, the lawsuit asks whether the Second Amendment still protects the right to self-defense where it may be needed most, on the sidewalks of America’s most iconic crossroads.

The defendants have 21 days to respond. Given the direct clash with circuit precedent and the high-profile location at issue, the case is widely expected to move quickly through preliminary motions and could ultimately test the outer limits of Bruen’s reach in America’s cities.

Six Seconds and Forty Yards: Armed Citizens Who Saved Lives

---

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/oC0a9QZ
via IFTTT

Virginia Gun Control Push Puts Spanberger on Collision Course with Gun Rights Groups

Virginia gun owners are scrambling to purchase guns as Gov. Abigail Spanberger now has several restrictive new bills on her desk, awaiting signature. Img Duncan Johnson

Virginia—the Old Dominion—with Democrats controlling the Assembly and Governor’s office, gun control legislation awaiting Abigail Spanberger’s signature and a promise of legal action; it’s the stuff of bad politics and righteous rebellion as the Second Amendment community braces for battle.

The Washington Examiner is reporting how so-called “progressive” groups such as Moms Demand Action “are behind a wave of tougher restrictions on firearms, wielding a quiet power that Second Amendment proponents worry could unravel gun rights in friendly territory.”

On the other side of the fence, the Virginia-based National Rifle Association is warning that what is happening in the state could be a signal of tough times on the horizon as midterm elections loom.

The Virginia Pilot looked at legislation now on Spanberger’s desk, including a ban on the sale and production of so-called “assault weapons.” Also on the list are bills requiring so-called “safe storage” of firearms in homes where children are present, another making it illegal to leave guns in unattended vehicles, and prohibiting guns or “explosive material” within the Capitol, Capitol Square and the surrounding area, any building owned or leased by the Commonwealth or any agency thereof, or any office where “employees of the Commonwealth or any agency thereof are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.”

Spanberger ran as a moderate, but once in office, she has been leaning left. If she signs the ban on modern semi-auto rifles, the National Shooting Sports Foundation is vowing to sue. If that happens, NSSF will likely have lots of company. Lawsuits are already challenging similar bans in Illinois, California and Washington state.

In the midst of this is the announcement that federal gun charges filed in connection with the sale of the firearm used in a shooting at Old Dominion University “are intensifying scrutiny of the state’s now-defunct universal background check law,” according to the Virginia Mercury.

Last year, a circuit court judge invalidated Virginia’s background check requirement for private gun sales. Then-Attorney General Jason Miyares declined to defend the law.

The Mercury report quoted Lori Haas, with the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, who reportedly acknowledged the seller of that gun may not have complied with the law, anyway, had it been in effect.

“It would have been at least a barrier in some minds in requiring a background check of the buyer,” Haas reportedly said.

However, that is speculation at best, considering the facts of the case. It does not erase the potential that the case will become a political football in the debate over whether gun controls are working, have worked, and may work in the future, and it will all play out just across the Potomac River from the nation’s capital, where it will be impossible to not get the attention of the gun prohibition lobby and their allies on Capitol Hill.

Politics is already at play in the case, because the accused man, Kenya Mcchell Chapman, allegedly had earlier gun law violations. That much was made clear in a Justice Department news release following the formal charging in federal court.

“Chapman allegedly stole a firearm and illegally sold it to a convicted terrorist, who murdered a decorated American veteran, and he will finally face the full weight of justice,” said Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. “Thanks to the hard work of our dedicated ATF and FBI agents, in partnership with state and local law enforcement officers, we have arrested and charged this safety threat and removed him from the community.”

If convicted, Chapman could face up to 35 years in prison.

The actual gunman in the case, Mohamad Bailor Jollah, was on federal supervised release after having spent time in prison after pleading guilty in October 2016 to charges of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. According to a court affidavit, Chapman admitted to having stolen the gun he ultimately sold to Jollah, who was found dead at the scene of the university shooting.

Meanwhile, the semi-auto ban, if Spanberger signs it, will allow current owners to keep their guns, but with additional restrictions.

Predictably, as noted by the Virginia Pilot, background checks spiked in February in Virginia, and NSSF spokesman Mark Oliva told the newspaper the scramble is due to concerns among Virginians they will be unable to buy a modern semi-auto rifle in the future if Spanberger signs the bill.

In the wake of charges in the criminal case, it could be argued once again that gun control laws do not prevent crime, as they apparently didn’t in the Old Dominion University shooting. That fact appears inescapable.

Armed Virginia Gun Owners Rally at Capitol as Magpul Distributes PMAGs

---

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/6PbXnoY
via IFTTT

Arizona Moves Forward With K-12 Firearm Safety Education Bill

Arizona Moves Forward With K-12 Firearm Safety Education Bill, iStock-kenlh 924246940

Arizona Senate Bill 1424 has passed the Senate and has passed the House Education Committee and the House Rules Committee. The bill requires school districts and charter schools to provide age-appropriate firearm safety awareness training in all grades, kindergarten through 12th grade.

The instruction is to be objective and not promote firearms ownership or any political position. The instruction is to be limited to accident prevention and personal safety awareness. It is to include guidance on safe firearms storage in homes and vehicles. The instruction is to provide guidance on what to do if a firearm is encountered, including not touching it and notifying an adult.

Inside the bill, there is a long list of restrictions on six things that may not be included in the instruction:

 3. NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

(a) A LIVE FIREARM.

(b) AMMUNITION OR SIMULATED AMMUNITION.

(c) A DEMONSTRATION THAT INVOLVES HANDLING, OPERATING, LOADING, UNLOADING OR FIRING A FIREARM.

(d) INSTRUCTION THAT IS INTENDED TO TRAIN STUDENTS IN THE USE OF FIREARMS.

(e) A MORAL JUDGMENT REGARDING LAWFUL FIREARM POSSESSION.

(f) AN INQUIRY, SURVEY OR REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT WHETHER A STUDENT, STUDENT’S PARENT OR MEMBER OF THE STUDENT’S HOUSEHOLD OWNS, POSSESSES OR MAY POSSESS A FIREARM OR ABOUT THE FIREARMS STORAGE PRACTICES OF A STUDENT, STUDENT’S PARENT OR MEMBER OF THE STUDENT’S HOUSEHOLD.

The Arizona Citizens Defense League (AZCDL) supports the legislation.

An advocate for gun storage legislation made the argument that the legislature should pass a bill requiring safe storage of guns instead.  The SB 1424 is considered a partisan bill, supported mostly by Republicans, according to Legiscan.

Fatal firearms accidents have declined greatly since the 1930’s high mark. The number of firearms per person has increased about 3X during that period.

Firearms are among the many hazards children encounter as they grow up. Education, not prohibition, is the surest answer to their safety.

The bill has passed the Arizona legislature, which is narrowly controlled by Republicans. Republicans have a 17-13 advantage in the Senate and a 33-27 advantage in the House. SB 1424 might avoid a veto from Governor Hobbs (D), but it seems unlikely. Governor Katie Hobbs has earned a reputation for the number of vetoes she has given. Governor Hobbs is facing serious re-election challenges. She might sign SB 1424 to claim she is not against rights protected by the Second Amendment.

SB 1424 severely restricts what may be taught to students. This may be necessary to secure passage in a legislature with a very small Republican majority.

The bill is a step toward greater understanding of firearms safety. It makes students more aware of firearms. It has the advantage of not being overtly against the ownership or use of firearms. As “age-appropriate” instruction on firearms safety, later grade levels might include information about the legal status of firearms in Arizona. It is difficult for people to obey the law if they do not know what the law is. Firearms are among the many potentially hazardous items children encounter as they grow up.

It is far better to gun-proof the child than to attempt to create a gun-free environment.

---

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/6uaFoPI
via IFTTT

ATF eForms Users Banned After Simple Security Flaw Is Exploited

Reports of ATF eForms users being banned from the system. Illustration created by AmmoLand / AI-generated image

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has faced a new challenge with its eForms system, the online portal used for submitting applications under the National Firearms Act (NFA). Sources have told AmmoLand that multiple users have been banned from accessing the platform, sparking widespread speculation within the firearms community about the reasons behind these restrictions.

While some initially viewed the bans as politically motivated restrictions on gun rights, the underlying cause traces back to a security vulnerability that was exploited, combined with broader operational strains on the system.

The eForms platform, managed in partnership with defense contractor Leidos, allows users to electronically file NFA applications for suppressors (silencers), short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs). This system was intended to streamline what has historically been a lengthy and paperwork-heavy process. However, issues with the platform have persisted, including administrative errors, processing delays, and now this exploit-related incident.

The vulnerability emerged earlier in the system’s evolution. In prior years, the eForms interface for certain NFA applications included a free-text box where applicants were asked to specify their reason for wanting an NFA item. Common responses included the phrase “all lawful purposes” (or similar variations such as “all legal purposes”), which has long been accepted as a legally sufficient explanation. However, some applicants provided more unconventional or principled statements. For instance, one member of Gun Owners of America (GOA) reportedly entered that they sought the item to “exercise God-given rights”. The ATF examiner reviewing the application rejected it on the basis of this wording, deeming it unacceptable.

When GOA highlighted this denial on the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), it quickly gained traction. Other gun owners shared similar experiences of seemingly arbitrary rejections based on the phrasing in the reason field. The resulting public outcry prompted the ATF to review these cases. Investigators concluded that the denials were improper, as the reasons provided did not violate any substantive legal requirements. By the following day, the affected applications were reversed and approved.

ATF denied a GOA member’s Form 1 for saying he wanted to “exercise my God given rights.”

We’re fighting back in our One Big Beautiful Lawsuit challenging the NFA’s unconstitutional registry.

Ben breaks it down on today’s Minuteman Moment. pic.twitter.com/VulMy2AEbE

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) February 10, 2026

In response to these inadvertent administrative denials and the ensuing controversy, the ATF directed Leidos to update the system. The free-text box was removed and replaced with a simplified drop-down menu offering only one option: “All legal purposes”. This change aimed to eliminate subjective interpretations by examiners and standardize submissions.

Unfortunately, the implementation of this modification introduced a critical security flaw. According to sources familiar with the ATF’s internal operations, the update was not properly secured. Due to misconfigurations in the eForms system, the client-side form elements, those rendered in the user’s web browser, were vulnerable to manipulation.

Users with even basic technical knowledge could use browser developer tools to inspect and alter the HTML/JavaScript of the page locally. This allowed them to replace the locked drop-down menu with a standard text input field, enabling the submission of arbitrary text in the “reason” field despite the intended restriction.

One individual discovered this weakness and shared step-by-step instructions on Reddit in a post that has since been deleted. The guide reportedly made it straightforward for others to replicate the modification.

Importantly, this was not a traditional server-side hack: no sensitive data was extracted from the ATF’s databases, and users could not access or alter others’ applications. The exploit was limited to client-side form tampering, allowing submitters to enter custom reasons (often humorous, provocative, or outlandish) when filing new applications.

The NFA Division soon noticed an influx of unusual entries in the reason field phrases far removed from the standardized “all legal purposes.” This triggered an internal alert and investigation. ATF personnel traced the anomalous submissions to the now-deleted Reddit thread. Leidos was then tasked with patching the vulnerability, which involved strengthening client-server validation to prevent such manipulations from succeeding during submission.

The ATF has not issued any official public statement acknowledging the exploit or the subsequent remediation. In the aftermath, the agency took action against users who exploited the flaw. Numerous individuals who submitted modified forms or were linked to the instructions received bans from the eForms system. These bans stem from violations of the platform’s end-user licensing agreement (EULA) or terms of service, which prohibit tampering with the site or submitting false/inaccurate information.

Banned users are not entirely barred from pursuing NFA items. The ATF continues to accept paper applications from them through traditional mailed forms. However, this fallback option significantly extends processing times. Paper submissions have historically faced longer backlogs compared to electronic ones, even before recent surges in volume.

The exploit and resulting bans have contributed to broader slowdowns in NFA processing. ATF sources indicate that while the agency is actively working to reduce the backlog, the incident has added administrative burdens, including the need to review suspect submissions and implement fixes. Compounding this are dramatic increases in application volume following major legislative changes.

In July 2025, President Donald Trump signed the “One Big Beautiful Bill” (H.R. 1), a sweeping reconciliation package that included provisions reducing the federal NFA tax stamp fee from $200 to $0 for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs (machine guns and destructive devices remain at $200). The change took effect on January 1, 2026. This elimination of the longstanding tax originally enacted in 1934 as a deterrent removed a major financial barrier to NFA ownership.

The impact was immediate and profound. With no tax payment required, applications flooded the system as gun owners rushed to register items that were previously cost-prohibitive. Industry reports from manufacturers like SilencerCo, Silencer Shop, and SIG SAUER highlight expectations of massive surges in suppressor and SBR registrations.

The zero-tax policy has been celebrated by Second Amendment advocates as a significant victory, though some groups, including GOA and industry partners, continue pursuing litigation to fully remove these items from NFA regulation altogether, arguing that a $0 tax undermines the original constitutional justification for the registry and approval process.

The combination of the exploit fallout and the post-legislation influx has strained ATF resources. Processing times, which had improved with eForms in prior years (sometimes dropping to days or weeks for certain forms), have lengthened again amid the volume. Banned users face even greater delays via paper routes, potentially months longer than electronic submissions.

This episode underscores ongoing challenges in modernizing federal firearms regulation systems. While eForms represent progress toward greater efficiency, implementation vulnerabilities can lead to unintended consequences. The bans, while justified under the terms of use, have frustrated affected users who view them as being overly punitive for what was largely a client-side loophole. Meanwhile, the zero-tax era has democratized access to NFA items for many, but it has also highlighted the ATF’s capacity limits in handling unprecedented demand.

As the agency clears backlogs and refines its digital infrastructure, the firearms community continues to closely monitor developments. The eForms bans serve as a reminder that even well-intentioned technical changes can create exploitable gaps, especially in a high-stakes regulatory environment.

For now, lawful applicants are advised to strictly adhere to the unmodified submission guidelines to avoid disruptions and prepare for potentially extended wait times as the system adjusts to the new reality of free tax stamps.

ATF Says Brace Rule Case Is Moot, Warns Some Braced Pistols Still Face NFA Enforcement

---

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/015l9o6
via IFTTT

NSSF Warned Bullet Serialization Would Be a De Facto Ban—Now Illinois Wants to Try It

Illinois Democrats are pushing HB 4414, a bill that would serialize handgun ammunition, create a registry, and add per-round fees. img Duncan Johnson

Illinois lawmakers are once again pushing one of the most extreme anti-gun ideas in circulation: forcing handgun ammunition to be serialized, tracked, and entered into a government registry. The current bill is HB 4414, a bill in the Illinois General Assembly that would require serialized handgun ammunition beginning January 1, 2027, create a centralized Illinois State Police registry of ammunition transactions, and authorize end-user fees of up to 5 cents per round or bullet to fund the system.

As of March 12, 2026, the bill had been assigned to the House Judiciary-Criminal Committee, with hearings listed for March 24 and March 26.

That legislation gives fresh relevance to an older but still highly relevant National Shooting Sports Foundation fact sheet from 2021 on “bullet serialization,” which lays out why the idea has drawn opposition for years from manufacturers, law enforcement voices, and gun-rights advocates.

NSSF defines bullet serialization as marking each individual round of ammunition with a laser-engraved serial number, then argues that the concept would function as a de facto ammunition ban by crippling production, driving up costs, and making ordinary ammunition purchases subject to government tracking.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Superior Plated(R) 9mm (.356) Round Nose Handgun Bullets - 9mm (.356) 115gr Round Nose 1000/Box	Brownells.com	$ 93.99
	TULA 9mm Ammo 115gr FMJ Steel-Cased 1000-Round Case	The Mag Shack	$ 449.99
	Fmj 9mm Caliber (0.355'''') Pistol Bullets - Full Metal Jacket 9mm (0.355'''') 115gr Round Nose 100/Box	Brownells.com	$ 14.99
	Speer 9mm Gold Dot 115gr Hollow Point Ammo - 20-Round Box	The Mag Shack	$ 26.99

The Illinois bill shows exactly why those concerns have never gone away. Under HB 4414’s synopsis, all handgun ammunition manufactured, imported, sold, given, lent, or possessed in Illinois would have to be serialized starting in 2027. The bill would also criminalize a wide range of conduct involving unserialized ammunition, including possession in a public place, and direct the Illinois State Police to maintain a centralized registry of reported handgun-ammunition transactions. It further authorizes a fee of up to five cents per round or bullet to pay for the infrastructure, implementation, operations, enforcement, and future development of the program.

In other words, this is not a narrow recordkeeping bill. It is a full-blown attempt to serialize ammunition, monitor transactions, punish noncompliance, and ultimately make gun ownership prohibitively expensive or legally risky.

NSSF’s fact sheet argues that the manufacturing side alone makes the idea unworkable. According to the organization, ammunition makers cannot simply flip a switch and begin serializing every round. The group says doing so would dramatically slow production, require hundreds of millions of dollars in capital investment, and render existing plants and equipment obsolete. NSSF further warns that such a regime would slash available supply and turn ammunition that now costs pennies per cartridge into something that could cost several dollars per round.

That matters far beyond recreational shooting. The fact sheet argues that reduced availability and higher prices would hit law enforcement training and preparedness as well. NSSF says manufacturers use the same machinery and processes for civilian, law-enforcement, and military ammunition, meaning law enforcement cannot simply be carved out without major production consequences. The organization also notes that law-enforcement groups in California previously opposed similar legislation there.

The technology itself is another major weak point. NSSF says there have been no independent peer-reviewed studies by qualified forensic scientists validating bullet serialization, and notes that the technology has not been the subject of articles in the journal of the Association of Firearm and Toolmark Examiners. The fact sheet also raises a practical problem that critics have hammered for years: many bullets are deformed or mangled on impact, potentially destroying any identifying marks investigators are supposed to rely on.

The recent AmmoLand report on HB 4414 shows those objections are not theoretical. The article notes that critics of the Illinois proposal argue the technology is unreliable in real-world use, and that spent casings or markings could be manipulated, collected, or planted to mislead investigators. It also reports that the bill would force retailers to report buyer and ammunition identifier information to state police while layering on the per-round fee to support the tracking system.

NSSF’s fact sheet also points directly to Illinois as one of the places where anti-gun legislators have already tried to move this concept. The document says bullet serialization bills have been defeated in numerous states, including Illinois, California, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, and others. It also warns that lobbying campaigns have repeatedly tried to revive the concept at the state level even after earlier failures.

Ammo serialization is not a new idea discovered only by lawmakers in Illinois. It is an old gun-control scheme that has been circulating for years, repeatedly running into the same problems: questionable technology, enormous compliance costs, supply-chain disruption, enforcement headaches, and obvious civil-liberties concerns when the state starts building registries tied to lawful purchases.

HB 4414 puts all of those concerns back on the table at once. If enacted, the bill would not just burden manufacturers and retailers. It would hit ordinary Illinois gun owners who already lawfully possess ammunition, create new criminal exposure tied to possession of nonserialized rounds, and force the public to help fund the very system being used to track them.

Gun owners have seen this pattern before. Anti-gun lawmakers have proven they won’t stop. If an outright ban will not survive constitutional scrutiny, then they believe the solution is to instead tax, regulate, track, and criminalize a right until exercising it becomes prohibitively expensive and legally risky. NSSF’s warning from its fact sheet remains highly relevant today: bullet serialization is not a serious answer to violent crime. It is a costly, intrusive, and deeply burdensome attempt to control ammunition itself.

And now Illinois Democrats are trying to make it law.

ATF Says Brace Rule Case Is Moot, Warns Some Braced Pistols Still Face NFA Enforcement

---

from https://ift.tt/zBKCt8b
via IFTTT

Los Angeles Court Failed to Report 147,000 Felony Convictions to California DOJ

The Los Angeles County Superior Court failed to properly submit about 147,000 felony convictions to the California Department of Justice over more than 20 years. iStock-919659512

The Los Angeles County Superior Court has revealed that 147,000 cases of felony convictions were not successfully reported to the California Department of Justice.

The public notice of the backlog of errors was posted on February 24, 2026. Because they were not reported to the DOJ, they were not included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) database. It is possible some convicted felons were able to obtain firearms through licensed dealers because of this oversight. From lacourt.org:

Of the approximately 464,000 impacted cases, the Court has identified approximately 380,000 instances with convictions where the case’s ADR was not successfully reported to the DOJ. Of those, roughly 147,000 involved cases with felony convictions, and roughly 233,000 were cases with misdemeanor convictions. Approximately 84,000 cases were dismissals in which ADRs were not successfully reported to the DOJ. Of those, roughly 61,000 involved felony dismissals, and roughly 23,000 involved misdemeanor dismissals.

The convictions are being transmitted to the DOJ at the present time. Most of the records occurred from the 1980’s to 2006. Some of the records are as late as 2023.

About 18% of the records are for cases that were dismissed. These could affect criminal history checks. Such checks often include arrests. Without the record of a dismissal of charges, it would become more difficult for an individual to show he was not convicted of a crime.

There is no indication or reporting that the California Department of Justice will be doing checks to see if any firearms were transferred to people with felony convictions.

The Los Angeles County Superior Court handles cases for about 9.8 million people. These cases are mostly from over 20 years ago. The average number of felony convictions in the United States over that period was about 500 per 100,000 adults per year. The average is probably higher in California, but assuming the national average, we would expect about 50,000 felony convictions per year, or about 1.15 million convictions over the 23 year period.

Given these back-of-the-envelope estimates, roughly 1 in 8 felony convictions in the period in Los Angeles County were not input properly. This does not engender faith in the criminal justice system.  Bad record-keeping is what one expects in third-world countries.

This shows, in spite of platitudes about how important it is to keep guns away from those who should not have them, the actual performance of doing so was not a very high priority.

California wants gun owners to trust a sprawling disarmament bureaucracy that cannot even keep felony and dismissal records straight.

This correspondent does not believe it should be the highest priority, because such laws are of marginal use against violent criminals. They are primarily used to convince those who desire to follow the law that they should not acquire firearms. Such an attempt does not work well.

In Australia, when extreme gun control measures were put into effect, the population followed the arcane and difficult rules, but increased the number of firearms owned, per capita, anyway.

People will go to considerable trouble to obtain legal firearms when they have the desire to have them. Australian bureaucracy followed the rules. The number of firearms owned has increased. Those who hate an armed population were outraged. Now they are proposing even more restrictions. Rule-following is not what those who want the people disarmed desire.

They want the people disarmed. 

It is good to see proper record-keeping. Bad record-keeping undermines faith in government.  Given the allegations of corruption in California, especially in Los Angeles, this correspondent wonders whether any of the “mistakes” were “helped” by a “helpful” clerical staff.  This correspondent has not seen any evidence of such “help”.

The more people see the state as corrupt or even bumbling, the more they see the value of an armed population.

---

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/ZbUMH5l
via IFTTT