Los Angeles Made Gun Owners Wait Years for Carry Permits. DOJ’s Deal Would Add Court Enforcement

A proposed settlement would require LASD to publish specified carry-permit statistics for four years and remain subject to federal-court enforcement after judicial approval. IMG Duncan Johnson

The Justice Department and Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department have filed a proposed settlement that, if approved, would place LASD’s concealed-carry permitting operation under four years of reporting requirements and federal-court enforcement.

The agreement was filed on August 13 in United States v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, one of many affirmative Second Amendment lawsuits brought by the current DOJ on behalf of gun owners. It still requires approval from U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett. The agreement does not become effective until the court approves it. If approved, however, LASD’s promises will become measurable obligations enforceable by DOJ in federal court.

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has agreed to end delays in issuing carry permits! @CivilRights will ensure that the terms of this agreement are followed in the years to come. We will always protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights.https://t.co/OJjrjB89TC

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) August 13, 2026

Los Angeles Buried Carry Applicants in Delay

DOJ sued LASD on September 30, 2025, alleging that the department had effectively denied thousands of citizens their right to bear arms through excessive bureaucratic delay.

According to the federal complaint, LASD received 3,982 new carry-license applications between January 2, 2024, and March 31, 2025. As of May 8, 2025, it had issued only two new licenses and denied two applications. Another 2,768 remained pending, while 1,210 had been withdrawn. Those are allegations, not judicial findings, and LASD admits no liability under the settlement. But the numbers LASD supplied to DOJ showed a licensing system that had become practically useless.

The average delay before LASD advanced a new application to its next step was 281 days. The median was 372 days, while the longest recorded delay was approximately 1,030 days. Some interviews had been scheduled for November 2026—more than two years after the applications were submitted.

Government cannot use an administrative backlog to accomplish what the Constitution forbids it from doing openly. Bruen confirmed that ordinary, law-abiding Americans possess an individual right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. A licensing scheme that leaves applicants waiting for years makes that right meaningless in practice.

Four Years of Reporting and Enforcement

LASD represents that it now complies with California’s statutory processing deadlines after adding personnel and installing new processing software.

California law requires an initial determination concerning disqualification within 90 days of a completed application. That should not be confused with the separate deadline for final approval or denial, which may depend on when LASD receives information from the California Department of Justice.

Within 90 days after judicial approval, LASD must file a declaration explaining how it achieved and will maintain compliance.

For four years, LASD must publish the minimum, maximum, and average time taken by California DOJ to return required fingerprint information. It must publish the same figures for LASD’s final written approval-or-denial notices and report the number of delay complaints received and resolved.

DOJ may verify those figures and request supporting records, which LASD must provide within 60 days.

If a dispute arises, the parties must first consult, provide written notice, and give LASD a reasonable opportunity to cure. DOJ may then ask the court to enforce the agreement. Individual applicants cannot enforce it themselves because the settlement expressly creates no third-party beneficiaries.

Delay Is a Second Amendment Injury

The most important development is DOJ’s recognition that excessive permitting delays are constitutional injuries, not merely bad customer service.

Anti-gun jurisdictions cannot evade Bruen by replacing discretionary “good cause” requirements with appointments, paperwork, and years-long queues. What government cannot prohibit directly, it cannot suppress through deliberate administrative paralysis.

If Judge Garnett approves this agreement, Los Angeles County will face four years of public reporting, DOJ verification, and a federal enforcement backstop.

This is an important victory, but gun owners should not mistake one friendly Justice Department for permanent protection. A future administration, and a very different DOJ, could abandon this enforcement effort just as quickly as the current department embraced it. That is why Congress must continue pursuing national constitutional carry or, at minimum, nationwide carry reciprocity. The right to bear arms should not depend on who occupies the White House or whether local bureaucrats feel like honoring the Constitution.

---

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/d0owIVO
via IFTTT

Federal Judge Deals Final Death Blow to ATF’s ‘Engaged in the Business’ Rule

A federal judge rejected DOJ’s attempt to salvage parts of ATF’s vacated 2024 “engaged in the business” rule. iStock-1494671908

A federal district court judge dealt a death blow to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ remaining efforts to salvage parts of its controversial “engaged in the business” (EIB) rule. On August 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas denied the Department of Justice’s motion to alter or amend his earlier final judgment, holding that the entire 2024 Final Rule remains vacated.

Under former President Joe Biden, the ATF issued a Final Rule in April 2024 that dramatically expanded who needs a federal firearms license (FFL) to sell guns. The rule relied on language in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) of 2022, which amended the Gun Control Act’s definition of being “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms. Congress replaced the prior “principal objective of livelihood and profit” standard with a requirement that a person devote time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms “to predominantly earn a profit” through repetitive purchase and resale.

ATF Tried to Turn Private Gun Owners Into Dealers

The ATF went much further. The agency declared that the primary purpose of a sale need not be profit for an FFL to be required. Simply advertising or offering a firearm for sale could trigger the licensing mandate. The rule created a series of presumptions under which a seller was treated as a dealer unless the individual could prove otherwise. Gun rights advocates correctly labeled the regulation a back-door attempt at universal background checks that would criminalize ordinary private sales between law-abiding citizens.

Gun Owners of America (GOA), the State of Texas, and several other states and organizations sued in Texas v. ATF. In June 2024, Judge Kacsmaryk issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the rule against the plaintiffs. After the Department of Justice later voluntarily dismissed its appeal of that injunction in April 2026, the court entered final judgment on June 12, 2026, vacating the rule in its entirety under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court found that the ATF had exceeded its statutory authority and that the rule was unlawful.

Rather than accept the ruling, the ATF and DOJ filed a motion asking the judge to modify the vacatur. They argued that only certain portions of the rule should be struck down and that the agency could salvage the rest. Officials claimed a partial vacatur would ease their efforts to issue a new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that purported to revise the definition. In short, the government wanted the court to perform surgical edits so that pieces of the Biden-era rule could remain on the books.

Judge Calls DOJ’s Argument “Too Clever by Half”

Judge Kacsmaryk rejected the request in clear terms. He described the government’s position as “too clever by half.” Vacatur, he noted, is the default remedy under the APA when an agency action is held unlawful. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s severability analysis, the court found that the remainder of the rule could not function sensibly without the provisions already declared invalid. The rule’s single animating purpose had been to expand background checks through a vastly broadened definition of commercial dealing. Without those core elements, the rest collapsed.

The judge further observed that the ATF’s newer proposed rulemaking “doubles down on the substance of the old Rule,” including language that would allow regulation of gun owners even when they never sold a single firearm. That approach directly contradicted the court’s earlier holdings that actual sales and genuine commercial intent are required.

“Defendants cannot avoid the force of those Orders by rearranging a few words between the old Rule and the new one,” Kacsmaryk wrote.

The Engaged in the Business Final Rule therefore remains vacated in its entirety.

What the Ruling Means for Gun Owners

The decision protects private citizens who occasionally sell firearms from their personal collections, liquidate inherited guns, or make occasional transfers without fear of being treated as unlicensed dealers. It restores the statutory limits Congress actually enacted and reinforces that the ATF may not rewrite federal criminal law through creative regulation.

For gun owners across the country, the August 13 order closes a chapter of bureaucratic overreach that began under the previous administration and confirms that courts remain willing to hold the agency to the text of the statute.

---

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/5dyazxE
via IFTTT

Chicago Required Gun Training, Then Banned Every Place to Train

Chicago required residents to complete live-fire training before legally possessing a firearm while simultaneously banning public shooting ranges within city limits. iStock-2217328010

More than a decade before the Supreme Court struck down Hawaii’s attempt to make lawful carry practically impossible in Wolford v. Lopez, Chicago tried the same basic trick with firearm ownership.

The city required residents to complete live-fire training before they could obtain the permit necessary to possess a firearm. Chicago then banned every public firing range within city limits.

You had to train before you could lawfully own a gun, but the city prohibited you from training. That was not public-safety regulation. It was a handgun ban rebuilt with paperwork.

The Seventh Circuit saw through it in Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684 (7th Cir. 2011).

Chicago’s Post-McDonald End Run

For nearly three decades, Chicago effectively prohibited ordinary citizens from possessing handguns. The Supreme Court put an end to that in McDonald v. City of Chicago, holding that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Chicago’s political class did not accept that decision gracefully.

Just four days after McDonald, the City Council adopted its so-called Responsible Gun Owners Ordinance. The sprawling law imposed permits, registration, fees and severe restrictions on where firearms could be possessed.

To obtain a Chicago Firearm Permit, an applicant had to complete a certified safety course that included one hour of range training. At the same time, the ordinance prohibited all shooting galleries and firing ranges in the city. Government and certain private-security ranges remained available, but ordinary Chicago residents could not use them.

Rhonda Ezell and two other Chicago residents challenged the scheme alongside Action Target, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association. After the district court refused to issue a preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs appealed.

The Seventh Circuit reversed.

The Right to Keep Arms Includes Learning to Use Them

Judge Diane Sykes explained that the right to possess a firearm for self-defense necessarily carries with it the right to acquire and maintain proficiency.

“The core right wouldn’t mean much without the training and practice that make it effective,” the court observed.

That conclusion was not manufactured from a judge’s personal views about guns. The court looked to the original meaning of the Second Amendment and the historical record surrounding both 1791 and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.

The opinion cited Thomas Cooley’s influential 1868 constitutional treatise, which explained that bearing arms implied more than merely keeping them. It included learning to handle and use them and meeting for voluntary discipline in arms.

Chicago pointed to historical laws restricting the discharge of firearms in populated areas. But those laws did not establish a tradition of prohibiting controlled target practice. Many contained exceptions for shooting at designated targets or allowed firearm practice with permission from local authorities. Those were regulations of unsafe discharge, not blanket bans on training.

The city could identify only a couple of broad historical prohibitions unrelated to fire prevention. A few isolated laws could not overcome the larger historical record, particularly when other cities expressly accommodated target shooting.

Speculation Is Not Evidence

Chicago claimed firing ranges might produce accidents, attract thieves or expose shooters to lead. The city, however, presented no meaningful data or expert evidence showing that a complete ban was necessary.

The Seventh Circuit noted that ordinary zoning, construction and safety regulations could address legitimate concerns. Properly designed indoor ranges were already operating safely near homes, schools, churches and stores—including ranges used by Chicago law enforcement.

The city’s lead-contamination argument became so strained that the litigation wandered into a discussion about whether portable toilets supplied enough water for shooters to wash their hands. The majority wrote that raising the issue as justification for banning every range “suggests pretext.”

Judge Ilana Rovner concurred in the judgment, calling Chicago’s ordinance “too clever by half” and “a thumbing of the municipal nose at the Supreme Court.”

The Seventh Circuit ordered the district court to enjoin the range ban and related provisions that prevented residents from possessing or transporting firearms for training. Chicago remained free to impose historically supportable safety rules. It could not use those rules to exclude ranges from the entire city.

When Chicago responded with restrictive zoning, distancing and age requirements, the Seventh Circuit struck those down in 2017 as well. The combined zoning rules left only 2.2% of the city theoretically available for ranges, and not one public range had opened. The court again rejected Chicago’s speculative safety arguments.

Ezell in 2026

Part of Ezell’s legal framework has since been overtaken by N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Ezell majority applied a demanding form of heightened scrutiny after completing its historical analysis. Bruen rejected that second stage of judicial interest balancing.

Today, once the Second Amendment’s text covers a person’s conduct, the government must prove that its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That makes Ezell’s historical analysis more important.

The modern parallel is unmistakable. After losing in Bruen, Hawaii enacted a default rule prohibiting carry on private property open to the public without express permission. In June 2026, the Supreme Court struck that rule in Wolford v. Lopez, recognizing that it hobbled the right to carry during ordinary daily life.

Chicago did the same thing after McDonald: replace the ban the Court rejected with a regulatory scheme engineered to reach the same result.

The lesson from Ezell remains simple. Government cannot demand that citizens satisfy a condition, outlaw every practical means of satisfying it and then pretend the right still exists.

The Second Amendment is not a zoning suggestion or a privilege available only when city officials leave an approved location open. It protects the right to keep and bear arms—and a right that cannot be learned, practiced or meaningfully exercised is no right at all.

---

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/LCY3jSJ
via IFTTT

NFA Injunction Takes Effect, Now ATF Owes Gun Owners Answers

Plaintiffs are demanding guidance from ATF and DOJ after the seven-day stay of a permanent NFA injunction expired. IMG Tim Potter

The federal government’s seven-day reprieve in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF has expired. The permanent injunction against enforcement of major portions of the National Firearms Act is now in effect for the covered plaintiffs, members, and customers.

Now the plaintiffs want the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Department of Justice to explain how they intend to obey the court’s order.

In an August 13 letter, attorney Peter Patterson of Cooper & Kirk asked DOJ for guidance on what the injunction means for gun owners, manufacturers, dealers, organizational members, and customers covered by the judgment. The plaintiffs requested a response by August 21.

The NFA’s Taxing-Power Foundation Collapsed

The letter follows U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix’s August 5 ruling that the challenged NFA registration and approval provisions exceed Congress’s enumerated powers when applied to firearms whose making and transfer taxes Congress reduced to zero.

Congress originally enacted the NFA as a tax measure. For nearly a century, Washington used that taxing power to impose registration, fingerprints, advance approval, and criminal penalties on Americans possessing suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns. But a tax that collects no revenue is not much of a tax.

Once Congress zeroed out the making and transfer taxes on those firearms, the claimed constitutional foundation for the accompanying regulatory system collapsed. DOJ attempted to salvage the scheme by pointing to the Commerce Clause and the remaining occupational tax on NFA manufacturers and dealers. Judge Hendrix rejected those arguments.

Congress cannot pass a law under one enumerated power, eliminate the basis for that power, and then ask a court to rewrite history by assigning the law a different constitutional foundation. If Congress wants to enact a new law under its commerce authority, it must do so itself and remain within the Constitution’s limits.

The court permanently enjoined ATF and DOJ from enforcing the challenged NFA provisions against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their members and customers, both current and future. The ruling reaches covered people nationwide, but it is not a universal injunction protecting everyone.

Five Questions ATF Must Answer

That distinction is precisely why ATF guidance is needed. The plaintiffs asked whether ATF will issue instructions to regulated businesses and individuals, when those instructions will arrive, and whether the government intends to keep enforcing the same provisions against people who fall outside the injunction.

They also asked how ATF will distinguish between covered and uncovered individuals across the country. Dealers cannot be expected to guess which memberships, customer relationships, transactions, or records satisfy the court’s order while federal felony penalties remain in the background.

The most consequential question concerns what happens if DOJ later obtains a stay or reversal. The plaintiffs want to know how the government would treat NFA firearms legally made or transferred while the injunction was operating.

Would those firearms be grandfathered? Would ATF demand retroactive registration? Would owners receive a compliance period? Or would the government attempt to turn today’s lawful conduct into tomorrow’s criminal liability?

Gun owners deserve answers before acting, not after federal agents arrive.

The ruling does not mean the entire NFA has vanished. It does not automatically nullify state restrictions, the NFA occupational-tax system, or separate federal provisions governing certain dealer transfers and interstate transportation. The judgment also treats “any other weapons” differently between the two consolidated plaintiff groups because the Jensen plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the AOW provisions.

Those limitations do not diminish the magnitude of the victory. A federal court has held that Washington cannot maintain a registration and criminal-enforcement system untethered from any enumerated constitutional power.

The government had seven days to seek immediate appellate relief. It did not. The injunction is now effective, and DOJ still has time to appeal, but ATF cannot leave covered gun owners and businesses navigating a criminal statute through rumors, social-media posts, and bureaucratic silence.

The court has ruled. The stay has expired. It is time for ATF to explain how it plans to comply.

---

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/wqpXZVW
via IFTTT

No Form 4, No Wait: Historic Suppressor Transfers Begin in Texas

JTAC Industries Elf Owl, Vortex Razor Gen III, Dead Air Nomad TI IMG Tim Potter

History was made in Leander, Texas, in the early morning hours of Thursday, August 13. For the first time in 92 years, a suppressor was delivered to a customer on the spot. No Form 4; no waiting; just the same process as a normal firearm transfer.

Congressional candidate Brandon Herrera and Texas State Representative Wes Virdell took possession of their new suppressors just after midnight at Silencer Shop’s new location in Leander, just north of Austin. Also present at the transfer were Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, and Representative Andrew Clyde from Georgia’s 9th congressional district.

This is big news: Even the New York Times reported it.

Nobody tried to hide it. Gun Owners of America sent a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche and ATF Director Robert Cekada ahead of time informing them of the intended transfers.

The stage was set when the Justice Department allowed Judge Hendrix’s seven-day stay to expire without obtaining further relief from the Fifth Circuit. The permanent injunction in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF consequently took effect at 12:01 a.m. Central Time on August 13. DOJ still retains its ordinary right to appeal the August 5 judgment, however, and could ask an appellate court to stay the injunction while that appeal proceeds.

For the first time since 1934, law-abiding Americans took possession of suppressors without a Form 4, ATF approval, or NFA registration. https://t.co/CAa1ddpz1D

— AmmoLand News (@AmmoLand) August 13, 2026

The NFA Registry Lost Its Taxing-Power Foundation

On August 5, Judge Hendrix held that specified NFA registration, application, approval, making, transfer, and possession provisions exceeded Congress’s enumerated powers as applied to firearms whose making and transfer taxes Congress reduced to zero. The affected categories include suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and—in the case of the Silencer Shop Foundation plaintiffs—AOWs. The court did not reach the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims.

Since Sonzinsky v. U.S. in 1937, the National Firearms Act has been upheld as a tax measure, legal because Congress used its taxation power (U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8, Clause 1). Two years later, in United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court affirmed the Sonzinsky holding and said the NFA did not impact the Second Amendment.

This proved to be the key to a big loss for gun control fans.

In 2025’s One Big Beautiful Bill, Republicans reduced the transfer and making tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and AOWs to zero. Republicans had tried to get them removed from the NFA, but got shut down by the Senate Parliamentarian. So there was no tax, but the onerous registration process remained.

The challenges then focused on one key question: If the process was justified as being necessary to collecting the tax, how can it be justified if there is no tax revenue?

This is the question that was answered in the Fifth Circuit court for the Northern District of Texas on August 5th.

Since there is a question of whether or not district courts can issue nationwide injunctions, Judge Hendrix limited the scope of relief to the current and future members of the plaintiffs and plaintiff groups. Fortunately, there are lots of those.

Who Is Protected by the NFA Injunction?

The named plaintiffs in Jensen v. ATF were John Jensen, Jeremy Neusch, David Lynn Smith, Hot Shots Custom LLC, Texas State Rifle Association, FPC Action Foundation, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The separate Silencer Shop Foundation plaintiffs included Silencer Shop Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, B&T USA, Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo, Brady Wetz, and 15 states. The two cases were later consolidated.

Because the judgment expressly covers current and future members of the named organizational plaintiffs, membership may provide protection under the injunction. That does not mean joining any organization that supported the litigation is sufficient, and anyone relying on the order should verify that the organization is actually a named plaintiff.

Fifteen states were also plaintiffs in the case. The states are Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The injunction protects those states and, where applicable, their agencies and political subdivisions. It does not say that every resident of a plaintiff state is protected merely because of residency.

In fact, there’s a lot of air that needs to be cleared. Right now, there are more questions than answers when it comes to the scope of the injunction, necessary changes in federal and state enforcement, the status of FFLs and any rules needing adjustment.

Plus, the DOJ still has options, including an appeal to the Fifth Circuit and, potentially, later review by the Supreme Court. There has been a lot of pressure on the department to quit fighting a losing battle and simply let it go. But it ain’t over until it’s over and the fat lady isn’t singing yet.

It should be noted that Thursday’s suppressor transfers were green-lighted only after consultation with attorneys and anyone contemplating a streamlined acquisition of a suppressor should consult an attorney licensed to practice in their state.

Remember: GOA and our allies are proceeding with this transfer after consulting legal counsel and making an informed decision.

If you plan to do the same, consult your own attorney first to ensure you’re complying with all other applicable laws. https://t.co/GiCLcC2PgO

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) August 12, 2026

A Historic Win, but the NFA Fight Is Not Over

The good news is still good news. For covered customers in states where possession is lawful, participating dealers can now transfer suppressors without a Form 4, fingerprints, NFA registration, or advance ATF approval. The ordinary Form 4473 and applicable background check still apply.

SBRs and SBSs remain subject to additional Gun Control Act provisions that Judge Hendrix did not enjoin, while AOW relief extends through the Silencer Shop Foundation plaintiffs but not the Jensen plaintiffs.

The ruling is historic, but it is neither universal nor the end of the legal fight.

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

---

from https://ift.tt/bjxq0lQ
via IFTTT

DOJ Says Law-Abiding Americans Can Carry Guns in Public Post Offices

A new Office of Legal Counsel opinion concludes that federal law permits otherwise law-abiding citizens to carry constitutionally protected firearms for self-defense inside post offices open to the public. IMG Duncan Johnson

The United States Department of Justice has released a formal Office of Legal Counsel memorandum opinion clarifying that law-abiding Americans may carry constitutionally protected firearms into publicly accessible post offices for self-defense without violating federal criminal law. The opinion, dated August 12, 2026, and authored by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora C. Pettit, interprets 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), the longstanding prohibition on possessing firearms or other dangerous weapons in federal facilities, as not reaching ordinary self-defense carry in post offices open to the public.

Section 930(a) makes it a federal crime to knowingly possess a firearm in a federal facility, defined as a building or portion thereof owned or leased by the federal government where federal employees regularly perform official duties. Post offices clearly qualify under this definition. However, subsection (d)(3) creates an explicit exception for the “lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.”

The OLC concludes that self-defense constitutes a paradigmatic “lawful purpose.” Critically, the opinion holds that no special nexus is required between the reason a person enters the post office and the reason for carrying the firearm. Simply entering a public post office while lawfully armed for self-defense falls within the statutory exception.

The memorandum further determines that the longstanding Postal Service regulation at 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l), which imposes a blanket ban on firearms on postal property, cannot be enforced against individuals covered by the statutory exception. A congressional statute prevails over an agency regulation. Therefore, neither federal prosecutors nor the Postal Service may impose criminal penalties under § 930(a) or the regulation against otherwise law-abiding citizens who carry for self-defense in post offices generally open to the public.

The opinion relies in part on the constitutional-avoidance canon. Reading § 930(a) to impose a near-total ban on carrying in public post offices would raise serious constitutional doubts under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and subsequent cases. Post offices open to the public function more like retail establishments than sensitive places such as courthouses or legislative chambers. Historical tradition does not support a blanket prohibition on armed self-defense in such locations. By interpreting the “lawful purposes” exception broadly, the OLC avoids these constitutional problems without claiming that Congress lacks power to regulate firearms on federal property in general. The statute, properly construed, simply does not reach ordinary self-defense carry in public post offices.

The opinion is carefully limited in scope. It applies only to post offices that are generally open to the public. It does not address non-public postal facilities, secure areas, military installations, or other categories of federal buildings. Still, the reasoning is broad enough that it could, in theory, influence how the government approaches other public-facing federal facilities.

The release of the OLC opinion coincides with the Justice Department’s decision not to appeal a federal court ruling that effectively dismantled key permitting requirements under the National Firearms Act. Together, the two developments reflect a significant shift in how the Executive Branch interprets and enforces federal firearms restrictions.

As a formal OLC opinion, the memorandum binds the Executive Branch in its interpretation and enforcement of the statute. Federal prosecutors are directed not to charge law-abiding individuals who carry constitutionally protected firearms for self-defense into public post offices, and the Postal Service may not enforce its conflicting regulation against them. The practical result is that ordinary Americans who are legally permitted to carry firearms may now do so in the thousands of post offices open to the public across the country without fear of federal prosecution under § 930(a).

---

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/8pl72fu
via IFTTT

Ohio’s Unfinished Suppressor Reform Leaves a State-Law Trap for Gun Owners

Ohio continues to classify firearm suppressors as dangerous ordnance even as a federal court blocks NFA registration enforcement for covered buyers in other states. IMG Duncan Johnson

For years, Second Amendment advocates have pointed to an incongruity in Ohio law: a firearm suppressor is classified as “dangerous ordnance.” Ohio Revised Code § 2923.11(K)(5) expressly includes “[a]ny firearm muffler or suppressor” in that definition. The same definition that separately includes explosives, grenades, mines, rocket launchers, and other military-type weapons. A suppressor is not itself statutorily classified as an explosive, but Ohio’s dangerous-ordnance framework nonetheless places it in a legal category far removed from an ordinary firearm accessory.

That classification has serious consequences. Under R.C. 2923.17(A), a person generally may not knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use dangerous ordnance. A violation is a felony of the fifth degree. R.C. 2923.17(D).

For ordinary civilian suppressor owners, the principal statutory protection is found in R.C. 2923.17(C)(5): the exemption for owners of dangerous ordnance registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record under 26 U.S.C. § 5841. Ohio also provides a separate, limited hunting-related provision through R.C. 2923.17(C)(8) and R.C. 1533.04. But for the ordinary owner outside those narrow circumstances, Ohio law ties lawful possession to federal NFA registration.

The Problem SB 214 Addresses

Senate Bill 214 was introduced to eliminate that needless state-law vulnerability. Sponsored by Senator Kyle Koehler, the bill would amend R.C. 1533.04, 2923.11, and 2923.17 to remove firearm mufflers and suppressors from Ohio’s dangerous-ordnance classification.

The point is straightforward. Suppressors do not make firearms silent. They are commonly used to reduce firearm noise, including the harmful impulse noise associated with shooting, and to reduce disturbance to nearby people and property. Yet Ohio continues to treat them under a statutory regime designed for dangerous ordnance.

More importantly, Ohio’s current framework leaves lawful possession dependent on a federal registration mechanism. If Congress were to remove suppressors from the NFA registration scheme, or if federal law otherwise changed so that a particular suppressor was no longer required or capable of being registered in the NFRTR, Ohio’s separate dangerous-ordnance prohibition could remain in force.

Absent a corresponding amendment to Ohio law, a person possessing a suppressor no longer registered in the NFRTR could lose the principal exemption in R.C. 2923.17(C)(5), unless another statutory exemption applied. That is not merely a federal law issue; it presents a potential Ohio felony issue under R.C. 2923.17(A) and (D).

The Senate Acted

The Ohio Senate recognized the need for reform. On March 25, 2026, it passed SB 214 by a 31–1 vote. The bill would remove suppressors from the dangerous-ordnance definition and eliminate the resulting mismatch between Ohio law and any future federal change to suppressor regulation.

The bill then moved to the Ohio House. It was formally received on March 31 and referred to the House Public Safety Committee on May 13. The committee held hearings on June 2 and June 9, and advocates for firearms owners and suppressor reform submitted proponent testimony.

But hearings are not enactment. SB 214 remains pending rather than enacted.

Ohio gun owners remain exposed.

The problem is not that an NFA-registered suppressor is presently unlawful in Ohio. It is not. The problem is that Ohio’s own statute continues to define suppressors as dangerous ordnance and relies principally on federal registration to exempt ordinary civilian ownership from a fifth-degree felony prohibition.

That framework creates an avoidable trap. Federal reform, federal litigation, or a change in the scope of federal registration requirements could leave Ohio law behind. A person might believe that federal law permits possession yet still needs to confront Ohio’s independent dangerous-ordnance statute.

SB 214 would eliminate that state-law defect. It would not determine federal NFA policy, and it would not alter any federal requirements that remain in force. It would simply stop Ohio from treating a firearm muffler or suppressor as dangerous ordnance under state law.

Until the House acts and the legislation becomes law, Ohio suppressor owners remain subject to a statutory structure that turns federal registration status into the central protection against a state felony charge. That is a problem Ohio lawmakers can and should fix. The House should not leave Ohio gun owners one federal policy change away from a state-law felony trap. SB 214 is not radical, complicated, or speculative it is a clean, overdue correction to a statute that treats hearing-protection equipment as dangerous ordnance and makes ordinary citizens’ liberty contingent on a federal registry. The Senate has acted. The record has been made. Now the House must finish the job: pass SB 214, remove suppressors from Ohio’s dangerous-ordnance list, and ensure that no law-abiding Ohioan is left carrying the legal consequences of legislative inaction.

The Ohio House should be called back from early recess with one clear priority: finish the work the Senate has already begun and pass SB 214. Once that straightforward job is done, members can take the next several months off knowing they did not leave Ohio gun owners exposed to an avoidable felony trap.

Ohio’s gun owners should not be forced to live under a law that labels a hearing-protection device “dangerous ordnance” and leaves their rights vulnerable to the next change in federal policy. This is not a partisan stunt or a complicated rewrite. It is a narrowly tailored correction to an outdated statute, and the bill remains before the House after the Senate approved it 31–1.

The testimony has been heard. The need is plain. House leadership should call members back, move SB 214 out of committee, bring it to a vote, and deliver the certainty and protection Ohio gun owners deserve.

Editor’s Note: This problem has become urgent because of the federal court’s ruling in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF. The court blocked enforcement of key NFA registration and advance-approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” against covered plaintiffs, members, and customers. That victory exposed a second layer of regulation: state laws written on the assumption that these arms would always be registered under the NFA.

Ohio is not alone. Florida, for example, generally prohibits possession of an operable short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun under Fla. Stat. § 790.221, making a violation a second-degree felony. Florida exempts firearms “lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law,” while Ohio expressly relies on registration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. The language differs, but the structural danger is similar: as Silencer Shop Foundation dismantles federal NFA requirements for covered gun owners, outdated state prohibitions may create uncertainty or separate felony exposure. States must clean up these NFA-dependent laws so that a federal gun-rights victory does not become a state-law trap.

---

About Sean Maloney

Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics, including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.

---

from https://ift.tt/p7omcKs
via IFTTT