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

Illinois Democrats Push Bill to Serialize Ammunition and Create State Registry

Illinois HB 4414 would require handgun ammunition to be serialized, tracked, and entered into a state police registry. img Duncan Johnson

Illinois Democrats are pushing legislation that would require all handgun ammunition in the state to be serialized and tracked in a government registry, drawing fierce opposition from gun rights organizations.

The National Association for Gun Rights raised the alarm on social media, warning that House Bill 4414 “relies on the debunked concept of microstamping to mandate serialization of all ammunition manufactured, owned, sold, or even lent within the state. People caught with ‘unserialized ammo’ face misdemeanors and seizure.”

Illinois Democrats are pushing to serialize all ammunition and build a registry designed to track and monitor gun owners.

HB 4414 relies on the debunked concept of microstamping to mandate serialization of all ammunition manufactured, owned, sold, or even lent within the state.… pic.twitter.com/SwV8vJkYK4

— National Association for Gun Rights (@gunrights) March 18, 2026

Introduced by Chicago area State Representative Anne Stava Murray, HB 4414 would require that beginning January 1, 2027, all handgun ammunition manufactured, imported, sold, given, lent, or possessed in Illinois must carry unique serialized identifiers. Retailers selling the ammunition would need to register as vendors and report transaction details, including buyer identification and the ammunition’s unique identifiers, to the Illinois State Police, which would maintain a centralized registry. The bill also imposes a fee of up to five cents per round to fund the program’s infrastructure.

Penalties would take effect immediately upon implementation. Possessing unserialized ammunition in a public place would become a Class C misdemeanor, while manufacturing, importing, or selling unserialized ammunition would become a Class A misdemeanor. As of March 12, 2026, the bill was assigned to the House Judiciary Criminal Committee.

The legislation relies on microstamping, a technology that uses laser-engraved microscopic codes on firing pins to imprint identifiers onto spent cartridge cases. Gun rights groups, including the NRA ILA, argue the technology is fundamentally unreliable in real-world conditions. Studies have found that microstamp markings were decipherable on just over half of expended cartridge cases, and markings showed noticeable degradation after only 1,000 rounds fired. The National Research Council of the National Academies previously determined that “substantial further research would be necessary” before microstamping could be considered viable.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	CCI Blazer Brass 9mm 115 Gr FMJ 1000 Rounds (Loose Packed in a Box)	Ammunition Depot	$ 307.49 $ 274.49
	CCI - Blazer - 9mm - 115 Grain - JHP - 1000	True Shot Ammo	$ 487.44
	CCI Blazer 9mm Luger Ammo 115gr FMJ 50 Rounds	GunMag Warehouse	$ 12.99
	CCI - Blazer - 9mm - 115 Grain - FMJ - Bulk Pack - 1000	True Shot Ammo	$ 324.29

In a follow-up post, the National Association for Gun Rights outlined practical objections to the system, even if the underlying technology functioned as advertised.

“It would not be difficult to collect spent casings from a public range and undermine any tracing system, or even use them to frame someone else. The markings themselves can also be altered or removed,” the organization wrote.

The group continued by highlighting the compliance burden the bill would impose on manufacturers and individual gun owners.

“The real-world impact would be severe. It would place a massive financial burden on ammunition manufacturers, and there is no realistic way for individuals to comply. No one is going to sort through crates of ammunition they already own to serialize each round, and no company is going to offer that service at scale without astronomical costs,” the National Association for Gun Rights stated.

The organization concluded by framing the bill as an attack on lawful gun ownership rather than a genuine crime-fighting measure.

“At the end of the day, this is about criminalizing thousands of people and eroding gun ownership in the state, full stop.”

Critics such as Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers’ Institute (SAAMI) note that anyone could collect spent casings from a public shooting range and scatter them at a crime scene to mislead investigators or even frame a law abiding gun owner. The ammunition registry proposal follows Illinois’s existing requirement that gun owners register so-called “assault weapons” under the Protect Illinois Communities Act.

Second Amendment advocates argue that legislation built on faulty technology and sustained by a government registry has no legitimate public safety justification. For gun rights groups, HB 4414 is another attempt to make legal firearm ownership so burdensome in Illinois that residents simply give up the right entirely.

Gun Owners Challenge New Jersey Hollow Point Ban in Federal Court

---

About José Niño

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

---

from https://ift.tt/A58eogq
via IFTTT

D.C. Tries to Save Its Magazine Ban as Benson Sends Shockwaves Beyond the District

The Benson ruling struck down D.C.’s magazine ban and added new pressure to similar laws in states still defending bans on common magazines and rifles. Photo: Scott Witner – Magpul PMAG (Left), BCM Metal Mags (Right)

The panic around Benson v. United States is no longer limited to Washington, D.C. After the D.C. Court of Appeals struck down the District’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, anti-gun officials moved fast to contain the damage. D.C. is now asking the full court to rehear the case, while states like New Jersey are already trying to keep the ruling from influencing their own fights over AR-15 and magazine bans. That tells you Benson is bigger than one local case, and the people defending these bans know it.

That is what makes Mark Smith’s video worth watching. His breakdown focuses on D.C.’s desperate attempt to save its law, but the bigger story is what this ruling could mean nationwide. This is not just about one city trying to preserve one gun-control measure. It is about anti-gun jurisdictions trying to stop a pro-Second Amendment ruling from becoming the case that helps bring magazine bans to the U.S. Supreme Court in a serious way.

The Benson decision was a major win for gun owners. The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed Tyree Benson’s conviction and held that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are protected “arms” under the Second Amendment, described them as being in “common and ubiquitous use,” and struck down the District’s ban as unconstitutional. The court emphasized that these magazines number in the “hundreds of millions,” make up about half of the magazines in civilian hands, and come standard with many of the most popular firearms sold in America.

That language from the Heller decision is a direct threat to the legal theory behind AR-15 and magazine bans across the country. For years, anti-gun states have tried to treat standard-capacity magazines as if they were some kind of fringe item outside the Second Amendment. Benson cuts straight through that by recognizing what gun owners have been saying all along: these are common, ordinary arms owned by millions of peaceable Americans for lawful purposes.

But what makes Benson especially dangerous to the gun-control lobby is not just the outcome. It is the split in authority that the case created. The D.C. Court of Appeals, the District’s court of last resort, went the opposite direction from other appellate courts that have upheld bans on standard capacity magazines. That kind of conflict matters because the Supreme Court is much more likely to step in when lower courts are openly divided on a major constitutional question.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Magpul PMAG 30 Round Magazine AK/AKM GEN M3 7.62x39 - MAG573-BLK	Palmetto State Armory	$ 32.99 $ 28.99
	Magpul PMAG GEN 2 MOE AR-15 30 Round Magazine (5 Pack) & 100 Rounds of PMC Bronze .223 Remington FMJ 55gr Ammo	The Mag Shack	$ 126.25 $ 94.99
	Magpul PMAG GEN 2 MOE AR-15 .223/5.56 30 Round Magazine (50 Pack Case)	The Mag Shack	$ 649.99 $ 474.99
	Magpul PMAG GEN M3 AK-47 7.62x39 30 Round Magazine (10 Pack)	The Mag Shack	$ 229.99

Lawyers in several pending Supreme Court magazine-ban cases have already filed supplemental briefs pointing to Benson as the kind of conflict the justices usually look for when deciding whether to grant review. One brief told the Court there is now a “square split” on the ultimate question of whether bans on magazines over 10 rounds can survive the Second Amendment. Another argued that Benson “deepens the split of authority” below. In other words, this ruling has already become part of the push to get the Supreme Court to finally take up the issue.

Court records show the District sought to suspend the opinion’s effect almost immediately and then filed for rehearing en banc, asking the full D.C. Court of Appeals to step in and overturn the three-judge panel. The goal is obvious: erase or weaken the ruling before it can become an even stronger vehicle for Supreme Court review. If the panel opinion stands, anti-gun states will have a much harder time pretending there is no real conflict for the justices to resolve.

And D.C. is not alone. As AmmoLand recently reported, New Jersey rushed into the Third Circuit on March 18 with a letter urging the court to reject Benson as a “non-binding outlier.” The state also complained that the ruling remains subject to en banc review and conflicts with other appellate decisions. That reaction says a lot. New Jersey is still trying to defend bans on AR-15s and magazines, and it clearly does not want judges in the Third Circuit taking a hard look at a fresh decision holding that magazines over 10 rounds are protected arms in common use.

That is really the national significance of this case. Benson is not just a local loss for D.C. It is already putting pressure on other states still defending bans on some of the most commonly owned rifles and magazines in America. Once a court starts saying out loud that these magazines are ubiquitous, common, and constitutionally protected, the foundation under magazine bans begins to crack. And when those bans are tied to broader attacks on common semiautomatic rifles, the pressure spreads even further.

The pressure on the Supreme Court is now even harder to ignore because Duncan v. Bonta is already sitting in the conference stage. The justices distributed the case for their March 20, 2026, conference after both sides filed new briefs addressing Benson. The petition has already been relisted multiple times. If the Court was looking for a clean split before stepping in, Benson may be the case that finally forces its hand.

D.C.’s en banc petition is not just about saving one ordinance. It is an effort to stop Benson from becoming a stronger national precedent and to keep the Supreme Court from using this split as a reason to step in. States like New Jersey are trying to do the same thing from the sidelines, hoping other courts will ignore Benson before it gains momentum. That is not the behavior of people confident in the constitutionality of their laws. It is the behavior of officials who know the ground is shifting under them.

If the courts follow Heller and Bruen honestly, that should be the end of AR-15 and magazine bans nationwide. The anti-gun side understands that. That is why they are scrambling now. Benson has created a split, raised the odds of Supreme Court review, and put anti-gun states on notice that their favorite bans may not survive much longer.

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

---

from https://ift.tt/IJkUZ4C
via IFTTT

How SBRs and SBSs Got Trapped in the NFA’s 1934 Gun Control Scheme

An AR-15 style short-barreled rifle shown separated upper and lower, put these together without a tax stamp, and you would violate the NFA. iStock-627164218

The story of how short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) ended up regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 is one of the clearest examples of unnecessary federal overreach, bureaucratic accident, and enduring infringement on Second Amendment rights. What began as a panicked response to 1930s gangster violence morphed into a permanent regulatory trap that punishes law-abiding Americans for owning common, useful firearms, configurations that have legitimate sporting, defensive, and historical purposes, while doing virtually nothing to stop actual crime.

In the early 1930s, America was gripped by sensational headlines about organized crime: the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, Bonnie and Clyde’s exploits, and Al Capone’s Thompson submachine guns. Politicians and the media hyped “gangster weapons,” with sawed-off shotguns singled out as tools of the underworld. Attorney General Homer Cummings and the Justice Department pushed for federal action, but they knew an outright ban on firearms would likely violate the Second Amendment. Instead, they cleverly used Congress’s taxing power to create a de facto prohibition through heavy fees, registration, and paperwork.

The initial bill, H.R. 9066, was far broader than the bill that passed. It targeted machine guns, silencers, short-barreled shotguns and rifles (under 18 inches), handguns, pistols, and revolvers.

The $200 transfer tax (equivalent to roughly $4,800–$5,000 today) was designed to be prohibitive, pricing ordinary citizens out while supposedly tracking criminals. To close an obvious loophole, drafters added short-barreled rifles and shotguns: if handguns were taxed and registered, a criminal (or citizen) could simply buy a cheap rifle or shotgun and saw it down to handgun-like concealability, bypassing the rules entirely.

This was already problematic. Handguns were and remain the quintessential self-defense arms, protected under the Second Amendment (later affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller). Regulating them federally would have been a direct assault on the right to bear arms for personal protection. The National Rifle Association (NRA), though smaller and less politically powerful in 1934, mobilized against the inclusion of handguns. NRA representatives like Karl T. Frederick testified that such restrictions would criminalize millions of honest sportsmen and homeowners without touching real criminals, who would ignore the law anyway.

Intense lobbying and public criticism forced a retreat. By May–June 1934, the handgun provisions were stripped from the revised bill (H.R. 9741). Congress concluded that ordinary citizens needed pistols and revolvers for home defense and should not be treated like gangsters. The NRA scored a major win here: handguns were exempted.

But the short-barrel provisions added only to plug a loophole around the now-deleted handgun ban stayed in the final law. No serious debate targeted them for removal. Sawed-off shotguns carried the stigma of crime; short rifles were lumped in as an afterthought. The 18-inch barrel threshold (later reduced to 16 inches for rifles in 1968) was arbitrary, based on vague “expert” input about concealability rather than evidence of widespread criminal misuse or inherent danger.

The result: Congress passed the NFA on June 26, 1934, regulating machine guns, silencers, short-barreled rifles (barrels under 16 inches or overall under 26 inches), short-barreled shotguns (barrels under 18 inches), and “any other weapons.” The $200 tax, fingerprints, photos, and lengthy ATF approval process became mandatory for these items. This was legislative malpractice, a provision born to prevent circumvention of a handgun restriction survived even after that restriction vanished, creating an absurd regime where handguns (more concealable) face no NFA burden, full-length rifles and shotguns are freely owned, but something “in between” triggers felony-level paperwork and taxes.

Gun rights advocates maintain a key truth: short-barreled rifles and shotguns were never a significant crime problem in 1934, and they aren’t today. No congressional testimony or evidence showed they were disproportionately used by criminals compared to handguns or standard long guns. Short rifles have historical precedent; Winchester sold “Trapper” models with 14–15-inch barrels in the late 19th century without issue. Short shotguns served practical roles in ranching, home defense, and even military scenarios (e.g., trench guns in WWI).

The concealability argument collapses under scrutiny. A 17.9-inch barreled shotgun is barely more concealable than an 18-inch one; a 15.9-inch AR-15 rifle is no more hidden under a coat than many large handguns. Yet one is a felony without paperwork, the other is not. Modern SBRs, like braced AR pistols turned rifles, are popular for home defense, vehicle carry, and training precisely because shorter barrels improve maneuverability without sacrificing much velocity or accuracy.

The United States v. Miller ruling in 1939 upheld the NFA’s shotgun provision, but only because no evidence was presented that a short-barreled shotgun had militia utility, a procedural flaw, not a substantive endorsement of the law’s wisdom. Post-Heller and Bruen, many scholars argue SBRs/SBSs are “arms” in common use, protected by the Second Amendment with no historical tradition of such regulation.

The NFA turned harmless modifications into federal felonies: add a stock to certain pistols without approval, shorten a barrel by a fraction, or forget paperwork, and face 10 years in prison. It burdens collectors, disabled veterans (who benefit from compact designs), competitive shooters, and everyday defenders. ATF inconsistencies, like flip-flopping on pistol braces, created traps that ensnared thousands until courts intervened.

Pro-gun groups like Gun Owners of America (GOA), NRA-ILA, and others have long called for repeal via bills like the SHORT Act (Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today), which would delist SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs from the NFA. Recent reforms (e.g., zeroing the $200 tax in 2025 legislation) chipped away at the scheme, but registration and approval remain infringements. Advocates argue the entire short-barrel category is a leftover: unnecessary, arbitrary, and unconstitutional under modern Second Amendment jurisprudence.

In short, from a pro-gun perspective, SBRs and SBSs were accidentally locked into the NFA because Congress botched a compromise. The handgun ban died, but its vestigial tail lived on, punishing responsible citizens for decades while criminals laugh at paperwork.

It’s time to finish what 1934 started: remove these common arms from federal overregulation and restore the full right to keep and bear them.

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/OdymbMi
via IFTTT

March For Our Lives Backs Federal Gun Ban for Marijuana Users

March For Our Lives is backing the federal government’s effort to keep marijuana users disarmed as the Supreme Court considers United States v. Hemani. iStock-2191379192

As the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether the federal government can strip gun rights from Americans who use marijuana, March For Our Lives has decided to plant its flag squarely on the side of disarmament. No one should be shocked by this. March For Our Lives has never met a gun control law it did not support, but other anti-gun groups have remained silent on the issue.

In a fundraising email circulating this month, the anti-gun group told supporters that “certain high-risk situations and behaviors shouldn’t mix with firearms” and pointed directly to United States v. Hemani, the case now before the Supreme Court. The email describes the case as involving a man who “uses drugs regularly” and warns supporters that the outcome could prevent Congress or individual states from enforcing limits on gun ownership. It then turns that argument into a donation pitch. The message leaves little doubt: March For Our Lives wants the federal government to keep using marijuana consumption as a basis for denying Americans their Second Amendment rights.

You’d think the gun control group focused on Gen Z would be the one that’s okay with marijuana users owning guns, but nope! March For Our Lives sent a email today in support of the government, saying that “certain high-risk situations and behaviors shouldn’t mix with firearms.” pic.twitter.com/2ZmxrtMG6C

— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) March 14, 2026

That puts the anti-gun group in direct opposition to the growing view that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) is constitutionally shaky when applied to non-violent marijuana users who are not actually impaired while possessing a firearm. As AmmoLand reported earlier this month, the justices appeared deeply skeptical during oral argument in Hemani, especially when the government tried to defend a broad ban untethered from actual dangerousness or present intoxication.

At the center of the case is a federal statute that makes it a felony for an “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” to possess a firearm or ammunition. Because marijuana remains federally prohibited, that language has long been used to disarm otherwise peaceable Americans, including people living in states where cannabis has been legalized or decriminalized under state law. In Hemani’s case, AmmoLand reported that the government alleged regular marijuana use, but not that he was intoxicated at the moment he possessed a gun. Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit sided against the government, with the Fifth Circuit concluding that habitual or past use alone is not enough.

That is the key point March For Our Lives either does not understand or does not care to understand. The issue is not whether somebody actively impaired should be handling firearms. Gun owners already know that recklessness is reckless, whether it involves alcohol, marijuana, or anything else.

The real issue is whether the federal government can impose a categorical civil-rights disability on millions of Americans based on a vague and elastic standard that sweeps far beyond any showing of actual danger.

And that is where the anti-gun movement always seems to end up. It starts with slogans about “safety,” but it quickly becomes a defense of total disarmament. The principle is simple enough: if the government can label you risky, the government can strip your rights. Today, the target is marijuana users. Tomorrow, it could be anyone else who falls outside whatever cultural or political line the gun-control lobby wants to draw.

That is also what makes the March For Our Lives email so revealing. Rather than grapple with the obvious constitutional problem in treating marijuana users as a prohibited class, the group falls back on the familiar language of fear. It lumps together “high-risk situations and behaviors,” blurs distinctions between addiction and occasional use, and asks supporters to fund the effort. Not once is a serious constitutional argument made. It is a political appeal built around the assumption that the right to keep and bear arms should belong only to people approved by anti-gun activists and federal regulators.

The Supreme Court’s questioning in Hemani suggests several justices may not be willing to go along with that theory. AmmoLand’s review of the oral argument noted that Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett appeared particularly skeptical of the government’s attempt to analogize modern marijuana users to historical “habitual drunkards,” while other justices pressed the government on whether it had actually shown marijuana users as a class to be sufficiently dangerous to justify disarmament.

That skepticism matters because the government’s position is far broader than many Americans realize. This is not limited to violent offenders. The government’s position in Hemani was that an illegal user of any substance should be stripped of their rights. It reaches people who have committed no violent act, who are not alleged to have threatened anyone, and who may be fully lawful under state marijuana regimes.

March For Our Lives is backing the continued use of federal law to deny a constitutional right to a class of Americans based not on violence, not on due process, and not on any individualized finding of dangerousness, but on a status offense tied to a broken and contradictory drug policy.

For years, gun-control organizations have insisted they support “common sense” restrictions. There is nothing common-sense about telling a peaceable adult in a state with legalized marijuana that he can exercise one freedom or another, but not both. There is nothing principled about treating a right as expendable whenever federal bureaucrats can attach the label “unlawful user.” And there is certainly nothing pro-liberty about fundraising off the idea that the government should keep broad power to disarm people who have harmed no one.

If Hemani results in a ruling that narrows or strikes down this application of § 922(g)(3), it will not be a win for lawlessness. It will be a win for the Constitution and a reminder that fundamental rights do not disappear just because the political class finds a new category of citizen it wants to sideline.

Armed Virginia Gun Owners Rally at Capitol as Magpul Distributes PMAGs

---

from https://ift.tt/ubn3whq
via IFTTT

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

Even with the 2023 pistol brace rule wiped off the books, ATF is telling a federal court that some brace-equipped pistols may still qualify as short-barreled rifles under existing federal law. IMG Jim Grant

In a blunt court filing from Monday, March 16, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) urged a federal judge to dismiss a high-profile challenge to its now-defunct pistol stabilizing brace rule, arguing the case has become completely moot. At the same time, the agency made clear it has no intention of abandoning enforcement against certain braced pistols under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA).

The 6-page reply brief, filed in State of Texas et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al., marks the latest twist in a legal saga that began three years ago. The plaintiffs, led by the State of Texas and joined by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and several Texas citizens, had sued to block the ATF’s January 31, 2023, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’” rule (88 Fed. Reg. 6478). That rule used a complex points-based system to reclassify many popular braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBRs), subjecting owners to NFA registration, a $200 tax stamp, and potential felony charges for non-compliance.

But the landscape changed dramatically when another federal court issued a universal vacatur of the entire rule, a decision that became final in mid-2025. With the rule formally nullified and revoked nationwide, the ATF now argues that nothing remains for this Texas court to enjoin or declare unlawful.

“The case became moot,” the ATF’s lawyers wrote. “Plaintiffs appear to accept that the Court can no longer grant them meaningful relief in relation to the Rule, which has already been formally nullified and revoked through universal vacatur.”

The agency’s earlier motion to dismiss cited Fifth Circuit precedents holding that, once an agency rule is vacated, APA challenges lose their live controversy. Plaintiffs’ opposition brief sought to keep the case alive by insisting the court could still block the “legal theories” that underpinned the rule, specifically the ATF’s position that at least some pistols equipped with stabilizing braces qualify as NFA-regulated short-barreled rifles.

The ATF’s reply delivered a sharp rebuttal, and this section has drawn immediate attention from Second Amendment advocates. The government explicitly acknowledged that it continues and will continue to enforce the underlying NFA and GCA provisions against braced pistols that meet the statutory definition of a short-barreled rifle.

“Plaintiffs also make much of the fact that defendants continue to enforce the NFA’s and the GCA’s regulation of short-barreled rifles against some brace-equipped pistols, even though the Rule has been universally vacated,” the filing states. “But that should come as no surprise, as that is consistent with how defendants have always explained how things work if a court vacated the Rule or enjoined its enforcement.”

The brief then quotes from an earlier ATF filing in the same case: “Even if this Court were to enjoin the Rule’s enforcement, that would not change Brown’s or any other GOA member’s statutory obligations.” It added that “the Rule imposes no criminal sanctions; any penalties for possessing an unregistered short-barreled rifle flow from the NFA. So, enjoining the Rule’s enforcement would not immunize Brown or any other GOA member from those penalties.”

In plain language, the ATF is telling the court and the public that the vacatur of the 2023 rule does not create a safe harbor for braced pistols. If a pistol with a stabilizing brace is designed to be shouldered and meets the NFA’s definition (rifle with a barrel less than 16 inches or overall length less than 26 inches), it remains a short-barreled rifle. Owners must still register it, pay the tax, or face prosecution. The factoring criteria may be gone, but the underlying statutory obligations are not.

This position tries to directly undercut the plaintiffs’ attempt to obtain prospective relief against the “legal theories” themselves. The ATF argued that all of the plaintiffs’ claims sound in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Without a final agency action still in effect, the court lacks jurisdiction to issue an advisory opinion on abstract legal interpretations or to enjoin hypothetical future enforcement.

“Plaintiffs’ claims all sound in the APA,” the reply states. “This Court has no jurisdiction to opine on or grant relief from any legal theories divorced from an existing final agency action.”

The filing also seeks to dismantle the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims. Although the complaint listed six constitutional causes of action, the ATF noted that the only private right of action cited was the APA itself (5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 706). No other statute provides a standalone right to sue, the government said, citing Fifth Circuit authority that constitutional challenges to agency action must generally proceed through the APA framework.

Plaintiffs had leaned heavily on the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Becerra to argue that courts can enjoin an agency’s statutory interpretation even after a rule is vacated. The ATF sharply distinguished that case: the Franciscan plaintiffs had a separate Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) claim that allowed the court to issue injunctive relief beyond the APA. Here, the plaintiffs have only APA claims, so the Franciscan precedent “lends no support” to their position.

The reply also rejected the plaintiffs’ claim that they had requested a broad injunction preventing enforcement of NFA regulations on braced pistols. The ATF said no such relief appears in the original complaint, and that plaintiffs cannot amend their pleading through opposition briefing. A separate request for a declaration that the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) notification requirement in 27 C.F.R. § 479.62(c) is unlawful was deemed “unmoored from any cause of action” and insufficient to keep the case alive.

The filing ends with a simple conclusion: “The Court should dismiss this case as moot.”

The case has drawn intense interest from gun owners because stabilizing braces were once marketed as accommodations for shooters with disabilities. Millions of Americans attached them to AR-style pistols to improve accuracy without creating a legally defined rifle. The 2023 ATF rule upended that market overnight, prompting an estimated 250,000–500,000 registrations during the agency’s amnesty period and countless lawsuits.

Gun Owners of America, referenced in the filing, and other plaintiffs argued the rule was an unconstitutional power grab that effectively rewrote the NFA through administrative fiat. The universal vacatur by another court appeared to hand them a major victory. Yet the ATF’s March 16 reply signals that the practical effect may be narrower than hoped: the specific “factoring criteria” are gone, but case-by-case enforcement under the decades-old statutory definitions remains fully intact.

Legal analysts say the filing puts plaintiffs in a difficult spot. If the court agrees the case is moot, and Fifth Circuit precedent on universal vacatur strongly suggests it will, the plaintiffs lose their platform to obtain the sweeping injunction they sought. At the same time, the ATF has put gun owners on notice: braced pistols that function as shoulder-fired rifles are still subject to NFA scrutiny.

The State of Texas and co-plaintiffs have not yet filed a sur-reply, and U.S. District Judge (the presiding judge in the Victoria Division) has not set a hearing on the motion to dismiss.

For millions of Americans who purchased stabilizing braces believing they kept their firearms in the legal “pistol” category, the ATF’s filing delivers a sobering message. The rule may be dead, but the underlying law and the ATF’s willingness to enforce it live on. The agency has effectively told the court: we no longer need the 2023 rule. The National Firearms Act is enough.

Federal Judge Expands Post Office Carry Injunction to Cover Future SAF & FPC Members

---

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/kxwuJVW
via IFTTT