Idaho Introduces Bill to Legalize Machine Guns If Federal Ban Falls

A man is preparing an M60 rifle at a shooting range. iStock-611295580

In the opening days of the 2026 Idaho legislative session, a quiet but strong challenge to federal firearms restrictions emerged from the State Affairs Committee. Senate Bill 1349 (S1349), introduced on March 2, 2026, and immediately referred to the printing committee, proposes a prospective framework that might transform Idaho into a shelter for civilian machine gun ownership, provided that federal law changes. Titled “An Act Relating to Machine Guns,” the bill does not immediately legalize new machine guns. Instead, it establishes a “trigger” mechanism that activates only if the longstanding federal ban under 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is repealed, struck down by courts, or ceases to be enforced.

This is no ordinary gun bill. It reflects Idaho’s deep devotion to Second Amendment principles, states’ rights, and vigorous defense against what many in the state view as unconstitutional federal overreach. With an emergency clause and an effective date of July 1, 2026, S1349 signals that Idaho is prepared to lead if the national landscape moves.

To understand S1349, one must revisit the 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) and its controversial Hughes Amendment. Sponsored by Rep. William J. Hughes (D-NJ), the amendment, which passed in a frenzied voice vote amid disputed parliamentary procedure, closed the National Firearms Act (NFA) registry to new civilian machine guns. Enacted as 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), it prohibits the possession or transfer of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986, except for government entities or those lawfully possessed before that date.

The result: Today, only approximately 250,000–300,000 transferable “pre-86” machine guns exist nationwide, commanding premium prices (often $20,000–$50,000+ depending on model). Post-1986 “post-ban” machine guns remain illegal for civilians despite the NFA’s original 1934 taxing-and-registration scheme remaining intact for other items like suppressors and short-barreled rifles. Idaho, like most states, imposes no additional restrictions; pre-86 machine guns are legal with federal compliance. Yet the Hughes Amendment has long been a flashpoint for gun-rights advocates, who argue it infringes the Second Amendment’s protection of arms “in common use” or suitable for militia purposes, as affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Recent events have reignited debate. In February 2026, West Virginia introduced Senate Bill 1071, a GOA-drafted measure exploiting a narrow exception in the Hughes Amendment allowing states to transfer machine guns. Wyoming lawmakers have signaled interest in similar legislation. Kentucky has also introduced a similar bill. These efforts, combined with ongoing federal litigation and shifting attitudes in a post-Bruen world, create the backdrop for Idaho’s approach.

S1349 begins with explicit findings and a goal. It affirms that the right to keep and bear arms is “fundamental” under both the U.S. and Idaho Constitutions (Article I, Section 11). It recognizes the federal machine gun restriction but declares Idaho’s readiness to safeguard lawful civilian ownership, manufacture, transfer, and sale “by law-abiding citizens and the firearms industry” once federal barriers fall. The bill’s stated goals: protect constitutional rights, position Idaho acting as a leader in “firearms freedom,” and bar state resources from enforcing invalid federal rules.

The heart of the legislation is new Idaho Code § 18-3328, which defines a “machine gun” verbatim from federal law: any firearm that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot more than one shot without manual reloading automatically by a single function of the trigger.

Crucially, it outlines four “trigger events” that activate authorization:

1. Congressional repeal of § 922(o) or any successor.
2. A U.S. Supreme Court decision holding it unconstitutional (in whole or relevant part).
3. A federal court ruling is binding in Idaho that permanently enjoins enforcement (and is not stayed).
4. Formal written notice from Idaho’s Attorney General that the ATF (or successor) has ceased enforcing the restriction against law-abiding civilians.

Upon any trigger event, it becomes lawful for non-prohibited persons (those not disqualified under federal or state law) to possess, purchase, receive, sell, transfer, or manufacture machine guns. State agencies are barred from prohibiting or “unduly burdening” these activities. The Attorney General must notify officials and publish notice within 30 days; provisions take effect 30 days after that.

The bill does not authorize possession by prohibited persons, override general criminal laws (e.g., using a machine gun in a crime remains illegal), or compel private parties to manufacture or sell. A companion section (§ 18-3329) prohibits state entities from expending resources to enforce the federal restriction post-trigger or assisting federal prosecutions of conduct now lawful under Idaho law. Severability and an emergency declaration round out the measure.

In short, S1349 is a sophisticated “nullification-plus” statute. It does not defy current federal law but stands ready to fill the void and shield Idahoans if that law collapses. Idaho has earned its reputation as one of America’s most gun-friendly states. Constitutional carry has been the law since 2016. No permit is required to purchase, no “assault weapon” or magazine bans exist, and NFA items (suppressors, SBRs, etc.) face only federal hurdles. The state constitution’s strong language prohibits special taxation, registration, or licensure on firearms.

S1349 fits this pattern. The bill echoes earlier Idaho efforts to resist federal gun control, such as nullification-style bills on background checks or land management. Supporters, likely including the Idaho Second Amendment Alliance (which has publicly tracked machine-gun expansion proposals), see it as insurance against a future when Bruen’s history-and-tradition test or congressional action dismantles the Hughes Amendment.

Economically, the bill could boost Idaho’s small but growing firearms industry. Manufacturers and ranges specializing in full-auto experiences shall expand. Rural counties, where machine guns could serve recreational, competitive, or even defensive roles (as the Founders’ militia concept historically contemplated), stand to benefit. Opponents might worry about public safety, but the bill’s focus on law-abiding citizens and preservation of criminal penalties addresses that directly.

Idaho is not alone. West Virginia’s SB 1071 takes a bolder, immediate step by creating a state agency to facilitate transfers, using the “by or to a State” exemption. If successful, it could test federal tolerance. Wyoming discussions suggest a domino effect. S1349’s contingent model is more cautious waiting for a federal trigger but equally assertive in refusing to cooperate afterward.

Judicial challenges are inevitable. Federal preemption doctrine could be invoked, though Printz v. United States bars federal commandeering of state officials. Post-trigger enforcement bans rest on solid anti-commandeering ground. If the Supreme Court ultimately validates civilian machine gun rights, S1349 would smoothly integrate. Until then, it remains dormant.

Pragmatic obstacles include ATF cooperation (or lack thereof) during any transition, as well as ensuring manufacturing complies with changing federal rules. Public reaction remains muted given the bill’s fresh introduction, but Second Amendment groups are expected to rally support while gun-control advocates decry it as reckless.

S1349 is more than policy; it is philosophy in legislative form. It asserts that states are not simply subordinates but sovereign laboratories of liberty, especially on rights the Founders viewed as core. Whether the triggers fire soon (via court, Congress, or executive action) or years hence, Idaho has declared its intent: when federal restrictions on machine guns fall, the Gem State will not hesitate to adopt the full scope of the Second Amendment.

As the 2026 session unfolds, lawmakers, gun owners, and legal scholars will watch closely. For a state that already trusts its citizens with constitutional carry and open ranges, S1349 represents the next logical frontier. In a time of rapid judicial and cultural change on firearms, Idaho is not just to react, but to lead.

WV Machine Gun Bill Clears Committee – Then Faces Pushback

ATF Exposed: Bureaucrats Blocked Americans from Owning Post-1986 Machine Guns

---

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/RDBP8W1
via IFTTT

Florida AG Says Jacksonville Firearm Registry Violated State Law

Personal Data Gun Registration Paperwork Privacy iStock-solarseven 1048264146

In a significant development for Florida gun owners, Attorney General James Uthmeier has formally challenged the decision of the Fourth Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office not to pursue action against the City of Jacksonville over its maintenance of firearm logbooks at city buildings.

On March 2, 2026, Uthmeier sent a detailed letter to State Attorney Melissa Nelson disputing her office’s conclusion that no criminal violation occurred when Jacksonville security personnel recorded firearm and personal information of citizens entering City Hall and another municipal building between July 2023 and April 2025.

Jacksonville’s firearm registry exposed law-abiding firearm owners to the very dangers that the prohibition was meant to prevent.

My office is correcting @SAO4Florida‘s misinterpretation of the law and moving forward with civil enforcement against the City of Jacksonville. pic.twitter.com/eH0tqJPIT4

— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) March 2, 2026

According to the Attorney General’s letter, the logbooks contained more than 140 entries documenting the names, birthdates, identification numbers, and firearm types of over 100 individuals. Uthmeier argues that this practice constituted a prohibited registry under Section 790.335(2)(a), Florida Statutes — a law that expressly forbids local governments or government employees from “knowingly and willfully” keeping any list, record, or registry of privately owned firearms or their owners.

The Core Dispute Over Florida Law

In her earlier letter dated January 2, 2026, State Attorney Nelson explained that her office declined prosecution in part because the logbooks did not explicitly record firearm ownership, and because the public works manager who authorized the practice reportedly believed it was lawful. She characterized the issue as a failure of process rather than criminal intent.

Uthmeier rejected that interpretation.

In his March 2 response, the Attorney General states that the statute does not require the registry to explicitly label individuals as “owners” in order to violate the law. If the firearms recorded were privately owned — and not government property — then maintaining a list of those firearms and the individuals bringing them into city buildings qualifies as a prohibited registry under the statute.

He further explained that Section 790.335(2)(a) does not impose strict liability but instead requires proof that a person “knowingly and willfully” kept or caused to be kept such a list. Uthmeier argues that the statutory definitions of “knowingly” and “willfully” do not require proof of malicious intent or awareness that the conduct was unlawful. Rather, the terms require that the act be done intentionally and with awareness of the facts. In other words, if officials intentionally maintained a logbook documenting privately owned firearms, that satisfies the statutory standard regardless of whether they believed it was legal at the time.

The Attorney General also emphasized that ignorance of the law is not a defense under Florida precedent, directly addressing the argument that the public works manager mistakenly believed the practice was lawful and that the directive had not been reviewed by the city’s Office of General Counsel.

Responsibility at the City Level

Uthmeier’s letter does not limit responsibility to a single employee. He states that the firearm logbook practice continued for approximately two years and was maintained at City Hall using city resources and personnel acting within the scope of their official duties. According to the Attorney General, either city leadership was aware of the practice and failed to intervene, or it failed to properly supervise and train its employees — both of which, he argues, expose the city to potential liability.

He also notes that Florida’s prohibition on firearm registries exists specifically to prevent the government from compiling lists that could later be used to profile, harass, or target law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights.

Possible Civil Enforcement Ahead

Although the Attorney General’s Office does not have direct authority to bring criminal charges in this instance, Uthmeier is directing Deputy Attorney General (Enforcement) Jason Hilborn to retrieve all evidence related to the matter for potential civil proceedings under Section 790.335(4)(c).

Under Florida law, a local government found to have compiled or maintained a prohibited firearm registry may be subject to civil penalties of up to $5 million.

A Test Case for Florida’s Registry Ban

Florida’s firearm registry prohibition is one of the strongest in the country. Uthmeier’s letter signals that his office interprets the statute broadly and is willing to pursue enforcement when local governments appear to cross the line.

The City of Jacksonville has not yet publicly responded to the Attorney General’s March 2 letter. Whether the matter proceeds to civil enforcement remains to be seen, but the dispute highlights ongoing tensions between local administrative practices and Florida’s statewide protections for gun owners.

AmmoLand will continue to monitor developments as the situation unfolds.

Supreme Court Signals Trouble for Federal Law Disarming Regular Marijuana Users

ATF Exposed: Bureaucrats Blocked Americans from Owning Post-1986 Machine Guns

---

from https://ift.tt/Y3SegxW
via IFTTT

SAF Challenges Third Circuit After Court Dismisses 3D-Printed Gun Files Case

SAF Challenges Third Circuit After Court Dismisses 3D-Printed Gun Files Case, iStock-2191244801

In the latest development in a long-running battle over firearms freedom and digital expression, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a petition for rehearing in Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey, urging the full Third Circuit to reconsider a controversial panel decision that effectively dismissed gun owners’ constitutional challenge to New Jersey’s crackdown on 3D-printed firearm files.

The case, originally filed in 2018, challenges the constitutionality of a New Jersey statute that bars the publication of computer code and digital firearms information used to program 3D printers to make guns or gun parts without a federal firearms license. In its petition, SAF argued that the panel opinion contained “analytical errors that run contrary to well-established legal precedent” and severely truncated the opportunity for merits review on the First and Second Amendment claims.

“This appeal challenges the New Jersey Attorney General’s long-running censorship of Second Amendment speech,” SAF said in its filing, characterizing the Third Circuit’s handling of the case as procedural gamesmanship that denied a proper constitutional examination.

A Setback for Digital Firearm Rights

The petition comes in the wake of an earlier ruling by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — a ruling that represented a serious setback for advocates of unrestricted firearms innovation and free speech online. In that February decision, the court affirmed the dismissal of the lawsuit, holding that the plaintiffs had failed to allege facts sufficient to allow courts to decide whether 3D-printed gun files qualify as protected speech under the First Amendment, or whether the restriction directly burdens the right to keep and bear arms.

AmmoLand previously reported how the court rejected the notion that computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided manufacturing (CAM) files are inherently expressive speech, declining to apply heightened constitutional scrutiny based on the plaintiffs’ pleadings. The panel also concluded there was no concrete Second Amendment injury because the complaint did not allege that any plaintiff was prevented from personally manufacturing a firearm.

That decision marked a troubling new test for digital firearm rights: judges now may treat code used to make guns as purely functional conduct that falls outside core First Amendment protections unless litigants specifically and articulately plead expressive elements.

Why the Rehearing Matters

SAF’s petition for rehearing is more than procedural formality — it’s a direct challenge to a framework many gun owners and digital rights supporters view as hostile to both free speech and the independent manufacture of arms. The petition argues that the panel’s decision dodged the substantive constitutional issues at its core and instead relied on technicalities and factual deficiencies that could have been cured with a more thorough judicial review.

Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, underscored that the case “has languished in the system since 2018” and criticized the Third Circuit for sidestepping the heart of the constitutional questions presented. If the court is unwilling to correct its analytical errors, SAF’s filing suggests, further appeals may be inevitable.

Looking Ahead

For Second Amendment advocates, the stakes in Defense Distributed’s fight are clear: the ability to share and access digital firearm information has become a flashpoint in broader debates over modern gun rights and online free speech. New Jersey’s statute and similar laws in other states effectively criminalize the distribution of digital files based on where someone lives, raising sharp questions about the limits of state power in an era when 3D printers and digital blueprints are widely available.

If the Third Circuit agrees to rehear the case en banc, it could reset the legal landscape for how courts treat digital firearm information. If not, SAF’s next move may be a petition for Supreme Court review — a path that could redefine how the Constitution applies to code, printers, and the quintessential right to keep and bear arms.

Stay tuned; this case is far from over.

---

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

WV Machine Gun Bill Clears Committee – Then Faces Pushback

WV Machine Gun Bill Clears Committee – Then Faces Pushback, iStock-619761640

In the final frantic days of the 2026 West Virginia legislative session, a bill unlike any other in modern American history appeared to clear its first major hurdle. On March 2, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Senate Bill 1071, the Public Defense and Provisioning Act, by voice vote, sending the measure to the Finance Committee with barely 24 hours to spare before the crossover deadline.

Sponsored by Senators Chris Rose (R-Monongalia) and Zack Maynard (R-Lincoln) and drafted with assistance from Gun Owners of America (GOA), SB 1071 would create a state-run Office of Public Defense inside the West Virginia State Police. That office would purchase modern, fully automatic machine guns, AR-15/M16-platform rifles, M249 squad automatic weapons, MP5 submachine guns, and any other arms “in common use by the military or law enforcement,” and sell them directly to qualified West Virginia residents at every State Police troop headquarters across the state.

The bill is not a modest tweak to existing firearms law. It is a deliberate, carefully constructed attempt to circumvent the 1986 Hughes Amendment, which effectively froze civilian ownership of newly manufactured machine guns after May 19 of that year.

By positioning the State of West Virginia itself as the transferor, SB 1071 invokes the explicit federal exemption in 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(2)(A) that allows transfers “to or by, or possession by or under the authority of… a State.” The bill’s legislative findings run for pages, quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, Tench Coxe, Henry Campbell Black, and Article III, Section 22 of the West Virginia Constitution to argue that the right to bear “arms of modern warfare” is both a constitutional imperative and a practical necessity for state defense and resistance to tyranny.

If enacted, the practical mechanics are straightforward yet unprecedented. The Office, headed ex officio by the State Police Superintendent, would acquire weapons, prioritizing West Virginia manufacturers where possible, store them in existing barracks and troop headquarters, conduct NICS-style background checks, and complete the transfer. Buyers pay the dealer price plus a mandatory $250 surcharge (plus up to $50 in administrative fees) that flows into a new “Public Defense Fund.” The state issues a sealed certificate proving the transfer was made “by” West Virginia, which the bill declares satisfies federal law. Critically, the legislation shields the state, its officers, and employees from any civil or criminal liability arising from subsequent misuse of the firearms. Records are exempt from the state’s Freedom of Information Act.

The immediate legislative impact is already measurable in the political theater it has generated. Even in one of the nation’s most gun-friendly states, where constitutional carry for those 21 and older has been law since 2021, SB 1071 has exposed fissures.

Sen. Ryan Weld (R-Brooke) voiced open skepticism during the Judiciary hearing, questioning whether the state can unilaterally declare itself immune from decades of federal court precedent interpreting the Hughes Amendment as a near-total ban on new machine guns for private citizens. The president of the West Virginia Troopers Association, Lonnie Faircloth, testified that rank-and-file troopers are personally uneasy about becoming the intermediaries in transfers that he claims could expose both sellers and buyers to federal felony charges. Committee counsel acknowledged that no court has ever blessed a state-to-citizen machine-gun sale of this nature and warned that the Supremacy Clause would likely control any conflict.

Yet supporters, led by GOA’s volunteer state director Alex Shay, insist the bill is not a loophole but a plain-text reading of federal statute. “This actually is federal law,” Shay told the committee. “West Virginia is not flying in the face of federal law.” Chairman Tom Willis (R-Berkeley) called the proposal a “novel legal concept” that finally delivers full Second Amendment parity in the Mountain State.

Though Willis has talked like he has always supported the bill, it took an outpouring of calls from gun owners who live in the Mountain State to force his hand to bring the bill for a vote. Last Friday, the bill was due to be heard, but Willis pulled it at the last minute. Only after an outpouring of outrage was the bill finally given a hearing yesterday, where it passed by a voice vote.

WV BREAKING NEWS

SB 1071 passed out of committee via a voice vote.

We’re at the 11th hour, and need to get the machine gun sales bill to the Senate floor.

WV Gun Owners, please continue to keep the pressure on your Senators by calling (304) 357-7800! pic.twitter.com/QQcdXhPqCd

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) March 2, 2026

This stage is where the bill should have been reported out of committee, but Willis failed to do his duty and report it as of early Tuesday Morning. Of all the bills voted out of committee, only SB 1071 was not reported. A West Virginia lawmaker told AmmoLand News that he believed that Willis did not want the bill and only brought it to the committee to quell unrest.

Although most believe that pro-gun organizations would support the bill, one organization whose endorsement was conspicuously absent was the West Virginia Citizens Defense League (WVCDL). A West Virginia lobbyist working for WVCDL threatened to kill the bill over the weekend in a verbal exchange in front of multiple lawmakers. The lobbyist threatened to kill the bill in other states as well, including Kentucky.

AmmoLand News also discovered in closed-door meetings that at the Capitol, the same lobbyist openly worried to lawmakers that if the bill passed, it could lead to police getting arrested for transferring machine guns. Since the transferee would have to go through the National Firearms Act (NFA) process, the police would be in the clear. The ATF could approve or deny the transfer. If the ATF approved, the police officer would transfer the gun with the federal government’s blessing. If they denied the transfer, the firearm would not be transferred, triggering legal battles. The lobbyist also said he was worried about West Virginians “getting hurt.”

AmmoLand News reached out to WVCDL President Kevin Patrick. He confirmed that the lobbyist was working for WVCDL, but WVCDL doesn’t have an official position on the bill. In the organization bill tracker, SB1071 is not listed, and in an email sent out Monday by WVCDL about current gun legislation, the bill was conspicuously absent. On Saturday, Patrick claims he just hadn’t had the time to update the tracker.

AmmoLand News asked Mr. Patrick whether the lobbyist was acting in good faith for WVCDL or acting on his own, using the WVCDL name. Mr. Patrick refused to answer the question and ended the conversation. It is unclear the motivation for trying to kill the bill, or why WVCDL has not even acknowledged its existence.

All bills must clear their respective chambers by Wednesday in what is known as “Crossover Day.” The bill’s non-reporting could kill it for a year, even though West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey has indicated he would sign it into law. The West Virginia Senate could change the rules and forgo some of the mandatory readings, but that would require a two-thirds vote, and it’s unclear whether there is enough support for such an action.

SB 1071 tests the outer limits of state authority versus federal gun control. Success would represent the first time since 1986 that civilians in any state could legally acquire brand-new, select-fire weapons without the artificial scarcity premium that has driven pre-1986 transferable machine guns to $20,000–$50,000 apiece. Should the ATF approve even a handful of Form 4 transfers under this framework, the precedent could ripple outward. Wyoming lawmakers have already signaled interest in similar legislation.

The passage would cement West Virginia’s reputation as the most aggressive pro-Second Amendment state in the Union. For Republican lawmakers facing primary challenges from the right, a vote for SB 1071 becomes a litmus test. Mr. Willis is facing a tough primary, and gun owners might see his actions as a betrayal if the bill isn’t reported.

As of March 3, 2026, the bill’s future remains uncertain. Yet the mere fact that such a bill has advanced this far in 2026 speaks volumes about the evolution of Second Amendment jurisprudence post-Bruen (2022) and the growing assertiveness of state legislatures against perceived federal overreach. Whether SB 1071 ultimately arms thousands of West Virginians with modern machine guns or becomes a symbolic footnote in the culture wars, its legislative journey has already reframed the national conversation.

In a nation where gun policy remains bitterly divided, West Virginia is once again proving willing to push the envelope toward what its lawmakers see as constitutional parity between citizen and soldier.

---

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/nlVTem4
via IFTTT

ATF Exposed: Bureaucrats Blocked Americans from Owning Post-1986 Machine Guns

For nearly four decades, American gun owners have been told a simple story: if a machine gun was made after 1986, civilian ownership is flatly illegal. End of discussion. That narrative has been repeated so often it’s treated as an unquestionable fact — in gun shops, in courtrooms, and even in conservative circles.

But what if that story isn’t actually what Congress wrote?

ATF Regulation (27 CFR § 479.105) governs the transfer and possession of machine guns under the National Firearms Act (NFA). It primarily implements the restrictions established by the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 (specifically 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which effectively banned the possession and transfer of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986, for most civilians.

For almost forty years, gun owners have been told the same line: if a machine gun was made after 1986, you can’t have it. Period. That claim traces back to the so-called Hughes Amendment, passed as part of the Firearms Owners Protection Act and codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(o).

But here’s the part most people never hear. The law’s text does not say what the ATF later claimed. The ban we’ve lived under since the 1980s didn’t come straight from Congress. It came from the ATF “interpreting” the statute during the political climate of the 1980s, when the agency was still under the Treasury Department, and anti-gun bureaucrats were flexing hard.

The key language in 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(2)(A) states that the machine gun prohibition “shall not apply with respect to a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or a State.” For nearly four decades, that clause has been read narrowly by regulators and most courts. But the phrase “under the authority of” is not self-defining. It is the pressure point.

One plausible reading — and the one embedded in federal regulation — is that “under the authority of” means possession that is directed, controlled, or specifically requested by a governmental entity. That interpretation appears in 27 C.F.R. § 479.105 (E), which limits post-1986 machine gun registration to firearms manufactured “for the benefit of” a government agency and at its request. Those phrases do not appear in § 922(o) itself. They represent the agency’s understanding of what “under the authority of” must mean.

A competing litigation theory would argue that the statute’s text can bear a broader interpretation. “Authority” ordinarily refers to legally granted power. States routinely exercise authority through licensing regimes, permits, or statutory authorization. Under this view, if a state affirmatively authorizes possession of a specific class of arms, that possession is, by definition, “under the authority of” the state. The statute does not explicitly require the firearm to be manufactured at the government’s request or solely for government use. That limitation comes from ATF regulation, not from the legislative text.

Historically, courts have sided with the narrower interpretation. In Farmer v. Higgins, the Eleventh Circuit upheld ATF’s refusal to register a newly manufactured machine gun for civilian possession. The court treated § 922(o) as at least ambiguous. They relied on legislative history suggesting Congress intended to close the civilian machine gun registry after 1986. The court also deferred to ATF’s interpretation as reasonable. Whether labeled explicitly as Chevron deference or as traditional agency deference. The practical effect was the same: the agency’s narrow reading prevailed.

The legal landscape shifted in 2024 with Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, where the Supreme Court rejected mandatory Chevron deference. Courts are no longer required to accept an agency’s interpretation merely because a statute is ambiguous. Judges must now exercise independent judgment in determining the best reading of the law.

That change does not automatically invalidate § 479.105. But it does reopen the interpretive question. A future challenge could argue that courts should reevaluate § 922(o) from the ground up. Focusing on ordinary meaning, statutory structure, and constitutional context — rather than starting from decades of regulatory practice.

Such a case would likely arise if a state enacted legislation expressly authorizing possession of post-1986 machine guns under defined conditions and a qualified applicant sought NFA registration. If ATF denied the application under § 479.105, the dispute would present a clean legal question: does “under the authority of a State” permit state-authorized civilian possession, or is it limited to firearms possessed for direct governmental use?

That litigation would force a court to decide, without Chevron’s thumb on the scale, whether the regulatory language requiring manufacture “for the benefit of” a government entity is the best reading of § 922(o) — or whether it reflects a policy judgment layered onto the statute.

Framed this way, the issue is not whether Congress banned machine guns in 1986. It did enact § 922(o). The narrower and more contestable question is how far the exception extends — and whether the regulatory interpretation that has controlled for nearly forty years is textually compelled or historically assumed.

As gun owners, we’ve been living under an agency rewrite of the law for almost forty years. The video breaks down the legal mechanics. The bigger point is simpler. When bureaucrats stretch statutes beyond their plain meaning, rights disappear. When courts stop deferring and start reading the text, freedom has a chance.

1986 wasn’t just a bad year for machine guns. It was the beginning of a regulatory power grab that we’re only now in a position to challenge.

GOA Backs West Virginia Bill to Allow State-Facilitated Machine Gun Transfers for Civilians

Kentucky HB 749 Follows West Virginia in Expanding Citizens’ Access to Modern Machine Guns

---

from https://ift.tt/cHzO1x0
via IFTTT

Supreme Court Signals Trouble for Federal Law Disarming Regular Marijuana Users

ATF/NICS firearm purchase form showing the marijuana-user exclusion question. iStock-919659526

The U.S. Supreme Court today heard vigorous oral arguments in United States v. Hemani, a high-profile Second Amendment case testing whether a decades-old federal law can permanently disarm Americans who regularly use marijuana or other controlled substances. The justices appeared deeply divided on the scope of historical analogues but broadly skeptical of applying the ban to non-impaired, occasional-to-moderate users, denoting a likely victory for respondent Ali Danial Hemani and potentially millions of cannabis consumers in states where the drug is legal.

The case revolves on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), part of the 1968 Gun Control Act, which makes it a felony for any “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm or ammunition. Marijuana is still a Schedule I substance under federal law, despite legalization or decriminalization in most states and continuing efforts (including under the current Trump administration) to reschedule it to Schedule III.

United States v. Hemani

In 2022, FBI agents raided the Denton County, Texas, home shared by Hemani (a 25-year-old dual U.S.-Pakistani citizen) and his parents as part of a wider investigation. They found a 9mm pistol, a small amount of marijuana, and trace cocaine. Hemani admitted to smoking marijuana “every other day.” He was indicted only on the § 922(g)(3) charge, with no allegation that he was intoxicated at the moment he possessed the gun, and no other charges were filed.

Hemani moved to dismiss, arguing the statute violated the Second Amendment as applied to him. Both the federal district court and the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, relying on the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That ruling requires modern gun restrictions to be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The 5th Circuit held that § 922(g)(3) can constitutionally apply only when the government proves the defendant was presently intoxicated while possessing the firearm. Habitual or past use alone is insufficient.

The Government’s Defense of the Ban

The United States, represented by Sarah M. Harris, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, defended the law as a “modest, temporary” restriction on a category of people who present special risks when mixing firearms and mind-altering substances. She pointed to founding-era laws disarming “habitual drunkards,” vagrants, and those subject to civil commitment or surety bonds measures that targeted individuals whose frequent intoxicant use created public-safety dangers without requiring proof of intoxication at every moment.

Harris emphasized that the restriction is reversible (rights can be restored upon cessation of use) and that illegal drugs differ from alcohol because of their federal illegality, association with black-market violence, and explicit congressional scheduling judgments about abuse potential and lack of accepted medical use.

Hemani’s Rebuttal: A Historical Mismatch

Hemani’s lawyers, Erin E. Murphy (of Clement & Murphy PLLC, arguing alongside ACLU and other counsel), countered that the government’s analogy fails Bruen’s “relevantly similar” test.

Historical “habitual drunkard” laws focused on severe, life-disrupting intoxication, people who were “falling-down drunk,” neglecting families, or unable to function, not moderate or occasional users. Founding-era Americans, she noted, consumed far more alcohol than modern marijuana users without losing gun rights. Applying the ban to someone who consumes marijuana “a few times a week” is a category error and renders the statute unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

Murphy urged the Court to limit the “unlawful user” prong to cases of proven functional impairment or to strike it entirely, while conceding that the “addict” prong (loss of self-control) may have firmer historical grounding.

Gorsuch, Barrett Signal Skepticism

Justice Neil Gorsuch repeatedly pointed out the mismatch. He asked whether daily hard cider drinkers like John Adams or nightly whiskey drinkers like James Madison would have been disarmed. When Harris suggested the law targets “habitual” illegal-drug use, Gorsuch quipped about “one gummy bear every other night” and pressed whether that qualifies. He appeared inclined to rule narrowly for Hemani: “Isn’t it just enough to say that is not a habitual drunkard?”

Gorsuch (I think) now pointing out that the founders knew how to party and drank a lot.

And Hemani only smoked “every other day.” What if he just used one pot gummy per day?

Govt is flailing right now it seems.

— SAF (@2AFDN) March 2, 2026

Justice Amy Coney Barrett zeroed in on practical absurdity. She asked whether lawful users of Ambien, Xanax, or even Robitussin who exceed dosage become “unlawful users” subject to lifetime disarmament. She questioned whether Congressional scheduling decisions automatically translate into Second Amendment disqualifications. Barrett seemed open to some restrictions, but unconvinced of a blanket rule untethered to actual dangerousness.

Liberal Judges Focus on Dangerousness

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson (who dissented or concurred skeptically in Bruen and Rahimi) expressed concern that the government offered no specific congressional finding that marijuana users as a class are dangerously impaired with guns. Sotomayor stressed that historical drunkard laws required evidence of lost self-control affecting daily life. Both appeared ready to side with Hemani.

Justice Elena Kagan explored hypotheticals involving hallucinogens like ayahuasca, probing whether frequency alone or functional impairment should determine whether gun rights are lost.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito voiced practical worries about the government’s position. Roberts questioned whether case-by-case dangerousness hearings would flood courts. Alito noted modern synthetic drugs post-date the founding and suggested stricter rules might be justified for substances unlike culturally entrenched alcohol. They appeared more receptive to upholding the ban in its entirety.

The overall tone was technical and respectful, with occasional flashes of humor (Gorsuch’s Founding Fathers drinking references drew chuckles). There was broad agreement that the “addict” prong has historical support if properly tied to loss-of-control cases. The fight centered on the far broader “unlawful user” prong, which is likely a good thing for the Second Amendment.

Likely a Narrow Ruling — With Major National Impact

While no final votes were cast today, a majority appeared prepared to rule for Hemani at a minimum, striking the law as applied to him and likely narrowing § 922(g)(3) to require proof of present impairment, addiction, or clear dangerousness. A divided decision is possible, with different justices writing separately on how Bruen’s history-and-tradition test applies to modern substances.

The ruling, expected by late June, would have enormous practical consequences. It could open gun ownership to tens of millions of state-sanctioned marijuana users, force ATF form revisions, and intersect with federal rescheduling efforts. It would also test the durability of the Bruen framework just four years after it upended Second Amendment jurisprudence.

For now, the justices’ questions today suggest the federal government’s categorical ban on gun ownership by marijuana users is on shaky constitutional ground.

Roberts v. ATF Challenges Post-Tax NFA Registration Scheme in Federal Court

Mayor LaGrand’s Epic Fail: Defensive Gun Use Data Destroys the Narrative

---

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/ox7R9PC
via IFTTT

Iran’s Power Vacuum Highlights the Importance of an Armed Citizenry

Iran’s Power Vacuum Highlights the Importance of an Armed Citizenry, iStock-1178046818

This weekend’s reported surgical military strikes inside Iran have reportedly removed key leaders of the regime, opening what could become a historic moment for the Iranian people. Whether that moment turns into genuine freedom or simply another reshuffling of tyrants remains to be seen.

But as the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) pointed out in a March 2 news release, one thing is painfully clear: the Iranian people lack the single most important safeguard of liberty that Americans possess—the right to keep and bear arms.

According to CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb, “Iran does not have an equivalent of our sacred Second Amendment,” and in the current power vacuum, “the Iranian people need it bad”. That statement is not hyperbole. It is a sobering reminder of what the Founders understood and what too many modern policymakers have forgotten.

A Power Vacuum Without Power in the Hands of the People

The Iranian regime has ruled for more than four decades as an authoritarian theocracy, suppressing dissent, jailing critics, and, in recent months, reportedly slaughtering protesters. The regime has also been accused of exporting terrorism and pursuing nuclear weapons ambitions.

Now, with top leaders reportedly removed, millions of Iranians hoping for change face a brutal reality: hope without arms is often just hope.

Gottlieb noted that reports surfaced two months ago of Iranians being arrested for manufacturing firearms, a signal that some citizens were preparing to resist with force. But isolated underground efforts are not the same as a recognized, enumerated right embedded in a constitutional framework. They do not level the playing field.

Without arms, citizens march. They protest. They chant. And history shows us what often follows: body counts.

The Founders Understood This

As Gottlieb stated, “The symbol of freedom in a nation of slaves is the gun, because it enshrines the ability of the people to keep government in check”. That statement may unsettle some in modern political discourse, but it reflects a core truth of American constitutionalism.

Our Founders did not enshrine the Second Amendment because they loved hunting. They did not draft it because they envisioned recreational shooting leagues. It was enshrined because they had just fought a war against centralized tyranny. They understood that liberty without the means to defend it is temporary.

The Second Amendment was not an afterthought. It was not symbolic. It was structural.

Iran’s current turmoil underscores that structure. A disarmed population facing a murderous regime does not possess any power to oppose it.

Peaceful Protest vs. Defensive Capacity

There is a tendency in modern Western discourse to treat peaceful protest as the highest and final expression of political resistance. Peaceful protest is powerful. It is morally compelling. But peaceful protest, when met with unchecked violence, becomes martyrdom.

Gottlieb observed that “marching against tyranny without the means to overthrow it has resulted in little more than body counts”. That is not a call for chaos. It is a historical observation. From the Warsaw Ghetto to countless failed uprisings across the 20th century, disarmed populations rarely prevail against entrenched regimes.

An armed citizenry does not guarantee freedom. But a disarmed one almost guarantees subjugation.

Americans Should Be Paying Attention

It is easy to look at Iran and think, “That could never happen here.” Our institutions are stronger, our constitutional framework is older and more stable, and our political culture is different.

But constitutions only function when the rights they enumerate are preserved in both law and culture.

The CCRKBA release reminds Americans that the Second Amendment is not merely about individual preference; it is about structural liberty. It exists to ensure that ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, not permanently with the state.

Originalism demands that we read the Second Amendment as it was understood at the time of ratification. The right of the people to keep and bear arms was understood as a safeguard against tyranny. It was a recognition that free citizens are not subjects.

When modern politicians dismiss the Second Amendment as outdated or claim it only protects sporting purposes, they ignore both history and the plain text of the Constitution.

Iran is a stark counterexample of what happens when a government monopolizes force.

A Guidepost for the Oppressed

Gottlieb concluded that America’s Constitution “can serve as a guidepost for the oppressed people of Iran, who deserve to live free”. That is not a statement of interventionism. It is a statement of principle.

Freedom is fragile. It is not self-executing. It requires institutions, culture, and—critically—the ability of the people to defend themselves from those who would rule them without consent.

For Americans, the lesson should not be abstract sympathy. It should be renewed appreciation. The Second Amendment is not a relic. It is not a partisan talking point. It is a structural check written into the supreme law of the land.

Events overseas are reminding the world what our Founders already knew: liberty without the means to defend it is an illusion.

The Iranian people may now have an opportunity for change. Whether that opportunity becomes freedom will depend on many factors. But one factor they lack—one we possess—is a constitutional guarantee that recognizes the people themselves as the ultimate guardians of their own liberty.

And that is precisely why the Second Amendment still matters.

Preparing for the Terrorist Threat Here at Home

Roberts v. ATF Challenges Post-Tax NFA Registration Scheme in Federal Court

---

from https://ift.tt/nSdKNm4
via IFTTT