CTRL+PEW Sues California in Federal Court Over 3D-Printed Gun Files

UBARX with really neat IAR Upper. Img from Ctrlpew.com

A Florida company and its operator filed a federal lawsuit yesterday challenging what they describe as an unconstitutional attempt by California authorities to suppress their online publications about 3D-printed firearms and firearm components. The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando Division), accuses the San Francisco City Attorney and California Attorney General of attempting to enforce state law extraterritorially against speech created and hosted entirely within Florida.

The plaintiffs are CTRLPEW LLC, a Florida limited liability company based in Orlando, and Alexander Holladay, an Orlando resident who operates the website ctrlpew.com. The defendants are David Chiu, San Francisco City Attorney, and Rob Bonta, California Attorney General, both of whom are sued by the plaintiffs in their official capacities.

The case centers on California Civil Code §§ 3273.61 and 3273.625 provisions that prohibit the knowing distribution of computer code or digital instructions intended for use in 3D-printing firearms, receivers, precursor parts, or certain prohibited accessories. Plaintiffs argue these sections are being weaponized to create a nationwide prior restraint on protected First Amendment expression.

According to the complaint filed February 11, 2026, CTRLPEW LLC maintains ctrlpew.com, which links written guides, photographs, and digital design files, including 3D models, hosted primarily on the third-party platform Odysee. All content is created, uploaded, and managed from Florida. The site does not specifically target California residents, does not run any California-directed advertising, and maintains no physical presence in the state. Holladay states he has not visited California since 2008 and has no intention of doing so in the future.

The dispute arose on February 6, 2026, when California officials filed a civil enforcement action in San Francisco Superior Court entitled The People of the State of California v. Gatalog Foundation Inc., et al. That suit names CTRLPEW LLC and Holladay as defendants, accusing them of unlawfully distributing and promoting “digital code” and “instructions” for 3D-printable firearms in violation of the cited Civil Code sections and California’s Unfair Competition Law. The California complaint seeks a permanent injunction, substantial civil penalties (potentially reaching $7,875,000), and other equitable relief.

California officials accompanied the filing with a public press release labeling the action a “landmark” effort to curb the spread of 3D-printed gun technology. Plaintiffs contend that this publicity, combined with the pendency of the enforcement action, even without formal service of process, creates a credible, immediate threat of prosecution that has already produced a severe chilling effect on their speech.

Holladay alleges he has:

• Refrained from publishing new works,
• Paused planned releases,
• Stopped registering copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office (fearing that deposit copies could be accessed by California residents and used against him),
• Become unable to enforce existing copyrights (because attaching example files as exhibits in litigation could make them publicly available via PACER to Californians).
• The federal complaint frames these self-censorship measures as direct injuries traceable to the defendants’ actions.

The plaintiffs advance four causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgment Act:

1. First Amendment prior restraint and content-based restriction: Arguing that the California statutes and their threatened enforcement function as an impermissible prior restraint on protected speech. Plaintiffs emphasize that technical information, computer code, and 3D design files are recognized as expressive conduct under precedents such as Bernstein v. U.S. Dept. of State.
2. Fourteenth Amendment due process violation (extraterritoriality): Contending California lacks authority to regulate speech and conduct occurring wholly outside its borders, violating fair-notice principles, and inviting arbitrary enforcement.
3. Dormant Commerce Clause violation: Asserting the statutes impermissibly project California policy onto the national Internet and regulating commerce beyond state lines.
4. Second Amendment burden: Claiming enforcement suppresses information that facilitates the lawful manufacture of arms and arm components, thereby infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

The suit seeks declaratory judgments that the extraterritorial application of the California provisions violates the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions barring defendants from enforcing the statutes against the plaintiffs’ Florida-based publications. Plaintiffs also request costs and attorneys’ fees.

Jurisdiction is predicated on federal-question and civil-rights statutes, with venue proper in Orlando because the alleged chilling effects and self-censorship are occurring there. Plaintiffs invoke personal jurisdiction over the California officials under the “effects” test of Calder v. Jones and recent circuit precedent involving similar out-of-state enforcement attempts against online publishers of firearm-related information.

The filing notes that the action does not seek to enjoin the ongoing California state-court proceeding itself (avoiding Anti-Injunction Act concerns) but requests only prospective relief against future extraterritorial enforcement.

This lawsuit arrives amid ongoing national debate over “ghost gun” technology, 3D-printed firearms, and the ability of states to regulate Internet speech with national reach. Similar disputes have produced appellate rulings in other circuits addressing whether officials may lawfully target out-of-state publishers for content accessible to, but not specifically directed to, their residents.

No response by the defendants has been filed to the complaint, and the California state-court action remains pending. The Orlando federal court has not yet assigned the case to a specific judge or ruled on any initial motions.

Legal observers note that the outcome could have broad implications for state efforts to regulate online speech, digital publishing, and the intersection of gun-rights advocacy and First Amendment protections in the digital age.

Gatalog Sued By California Over 3D Gun CAD Files

---

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/EGbIpaf
via IFTTT

Still Armed, Still Free: The Citizen Militia Endures as the Founders Intended

Will Noty Comply American Flag Militia Confiscation AdobeStock_Tomasz Zajda 110451903

In Wolford v. Lopez (No. 241046), the U.S. Supreme Court granted review of whether Hawaii may presumptively prohibit licensed concealed carry holders from carrying firearms on private property that is open to the public absent express permission from the owner — a rule critics call the “vampire rule.”

As Americans await the Court’s decision, one fact is undeniable: the modern American militia is not theoretical—it is vast, practical, and alive.

The Numbers Are Unmistakable

Conservative estimates place civilian-owned firearms in the United States at roughly 500 million — more guns than people — based on manufacturing and import data compiled by industry and federal reporting agencies. Industry analysis from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) shows that 491 million firearms were in civilian hands from 1990–2022, and this number has almost certainly grown to well over 500 million today, consistent with the estimates cited earlier in this article.

While comprehensive annual ammunition figures aren’t consolidated in a single federal database, reporting from the firearms industry indicates that U.S. ammunition production is measured in the billions of rounds each year — with past estimates showing as many as 8.1 billion rounds produced for the U.S. market in a single year. When accumulated over decades of lawful purchase and storage, civilian stockpiles of ammunition likely exceed one trillion rounds, reflecting the scale and preparedness of America’s private, law-abiding gun owners.

These are not numbers of idle hobbyists. Many Americans do not hunt, nor participate in organized shooting sports, yet continue to purchase and store firearms and ammunition. They do so because it is the fabric of who we are as a free nation. History has taught us from our earliest education that Americans have repeatedly had to fight—for independence from a tyrant king, for freedom across the world during WWII, and for the ability to pass liberty to future generations. We prepare and maintain our arms not out of fear, but because it is our responsibility as Americans, reflecting a citizen militia that is ever ready to defend the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution.

The Citizen Militia Is Not a Concept—It Is a Responsibility

Wolford v. Lopez raises a critical question under the Second Amendment and the Court’s Bruen decision framework: can a state effectively nullify the right to public carry by making “no guns” the default on private property open to the public unless invited?

The Court heard oral arguments on January 20, 2026, and the transcript is publicly available from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Founders’ Vision of an Armed Citizenry

The framers spoke repeatedly about an armed citizenry as essential to liberty:

George Mason: “To disarm the people… [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

James Madison: “The advantage of being armed… forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”

Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms…”

Samuel Adams: “Peaceable citizens [must not] be prevented from keeping their own arms.”

These historical voices remind us that an armed citizenry was essential to liberty, not optional.

Why This Matters Today

In an era of terrorism, violent crime, and emergencies, law enforcement cannot be everywhere. Seconds matter. A prepared citizen can protect families and communities when official responders are not immediately available.

“Freedom survives only in the hands of the prepared. The citizen militia envisioned by our Founders still lives.”

America’s 250th Anniversary: A Time to Reflect and Defend

As we approach the 250th anniversary of the United States, the Founders’ vision—an armed, responsible, and capable citizenry—still exists. But freedom is never self-executing; it must be defended in the courts, the culture, and in the public square.

The citizen militia lives. The Republic endures. The responsibility to protect both remains with us.

A Call to Duty for Future Generations

We are the inheritors of sacred trust. The Founders forged a nation on the principles of liberty and self-governance, and every generation since has carried that torch forward through courage, sacrifice, and, when necessary, with their lives. It is our duty to ensure that freedom does not erode, that the Constitution’s God-given rights are defended, and that the flame of liberty burns brighter in the hands of those who come after us.

We must equip future generations with knowledge, instill in them the discipline to act, and awaken in them the desire to protect what was so dearly fought for and won. The fight for liberty never finishes; it continues as long as we are willing to stand as the bedrock of freedom, safeguarding the inheritance of our children, grandchildren, and all who will call America home.

Above all, we must ensure that this great experiment in self-government endures and that the freedom we enjoy as Americans remains constant for generations to come.

Why the Ninth Circuit Keeps Losing—and Why Wolford v. Must End Judicial Defiance

Gatalog Sued By California Over 3D Gun CAD Files

---

About Sean Maloney.

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

---

from https://ift.tt/5jPwqWF
via IFTTT

CCRKBA Congratulates New Hampshire House for Adopting Campus Carry Bill

CCRKBA Congratulates New Hampshire House for Adopting Campus Carry Bill, iStock-1253189511

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is applauding lawmakers in the New Hampshire House for approving legislation allowing carry on college campuses by prohibiting colleges and universities from banning guns.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb took issue with opponents of the measure who have cited tragic campus shootings, such as the one at Brown University, as a good reason to prevent students or visitors from carrying defensive sidearms for their personal safety.

“Their logic is all wrong,” said Gottlieb. “Those incidents occurred on campuses where gun-free policies exist, leaving students and faculty unable to defend themselves. In an environment where people have not only a right but the means to fight back, it levels the field against evil doers, whether they are criminals or crazy people. We encourage people to support House Bill 1793 and tell their lawmakers to pass the measure.

“Colleges and universities can no longer masquerade as Ivory Tower institutions that are immune from attacks by evil people who belong either behind bars or in an institution,” he observed. “What once may have been considered a manifestation of cultural elitism has—because of Brown University—been shown to be a deadly case of self-delusion.

“We see one opponent of House Bill 1793 offer the argument that half of school mass shootings are done by students and the other half by campus visitors,” Gottlieb added. “What difference does it make who launches an attack? What can make a difference is whether one or more intended victims can immediately fight back and stop some madman in his tracks, thus saving innocent lives in the process.

“We’ve seen the results of an institutional ‘cower-in-fear’ philosophy,” Gottlieb concluded, “and it has been devastating. The time has come for common sense to prevail, and that includes putting an end to policies which essentially create risk-free environments for dangerous individuals to victimize young adults and their teachers solely to perpetuate an indefensible notion that people should leave their right of self-defense at a school’s property line.”

---

About CCRKBA

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

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

Delaware’s Ghost Gun Ban Leads to Wrongful Juvenile Conviction

Delaware’s Ghost Gun Ban Leads to Wrongful Juvenile Conviction iStock-gorodenkoff 1346156698

In a significant development highlighting ongoing issues with Delaware’s overreaching “ghost gun” restrictions, the state’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has admitted in a federal court filing that prosecutors unlawfully charged and convicted a juvenile under an enjoined statute banning possession of untraceable firearms. This revelation, detailed in a February 9, 2026, status update letter in the long-running case Rigby v. Jennings, underscores the risks of vague, unconstitutional gun-control laws that infringe on Second Amendment rights and lead to government overreach.

The case stems from a 2021 challenge brought by Delaware residents John Rigby and Alan Knight, along with the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), against then-Attorney General Kathy Jennings (now in a different role, but the defendant remains in the office). They argued that House Bill 125’s prohibitions on manufacturing, possessing, or assembling untraceable firearms, often called “ghost guns” by critics, violated the Second Amendment. These homemade or self-assembled firearms, built from parts or kits without serial numbers, represent a core exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, including the fundamental liberty to make one’s own firearm for lawful self-defense.

In September 2022, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika granted a partial preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of key portions of the law, including 11 Del. C. §§ 1459A(b), 1463(a), 1463(c)(1), and parts of §1463(b). The court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that these bans lacked historical analogues under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, which requires that gun regulations be consistent with America’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The injunction has protected law-abiding citizens’ ability to possess and build unserialized firearms ever since, affirming that the Second Amendment extends to modern methods of firearm production.

Despite this clear court order and the DOJ’s own guidance memorandum reminding law enforcement of the enjoined provisions, a New Castle County officer charged a 17-year-old juvenile on January 25, 2025, with Possession of an Untraceable Firearm under §1463(a), among other charges, like possession by a prohibited person and unsafe storage. The case moved to Family Court, where a Deputy Attorney General (DAG) inexplicably pressed forward with all charges, including the enjoined one.

To secure a plea, the DAG offered a deal: plead guilty to the untraceable firearm possession charge, which carried more lenient sentencing guidelines, no mandatory six-month detention, compared to the prohibited-person offense. On April 28, 2025, the juvenile accepted probation at “The Cottages” (a Level 4 supervised program) instead of incarceration. This plea was built on an unconstitutional statute that courts had already declared likely invalid.

The error only came to light during a routine review of criminal records for an unrelated case. Upon discovery, the prosecuting DAG promptly notified defense counsel. On January 27, 2026, the state filed, and the Family Court immediately granted a motion to vacate the conviction. The DOJ’s February 9 letter to Judge Noreika admits the mistake, attributes it to prosecutorial oversight despite internal guidance and likely discussions at Delaware Police Chiefs Association meetings, and reaffirms efforts to ensure compliance.

From a pro-Second Amendment perspective, this incident is a stark warning about the perils of anti-gun laws that criminalize common, constitutionally protected conduct. “Ghost gun” bans target everyday Americans who exercise their right to craft firearms at home, whether for sport, self-defense, or historical reenactment, without any evidence of misuse by the lawful builder. The term “untraceable” is a misnomer; these firearms are no more anonymous than cash transactions or private sales, which have long been lawful. Criminalizing possession or assembly punishes intent rather than action, chilling the exercise of a fundamental right.

This wrongful prosecution shows how such laws invite abuse: even with a federal injunction in place, overzealous officials can ensnare innocents (or in this case, a minor) in the system. The juvenile faced unnecessary legal jeopardy, a tainted record (vacated only after discovery), and pressure to plead to a charge that shouldn’t exist. It raises questions about training, accountability, and whether anti-gun zeal leads to disregard for court orders.

The Firearms Policy Coalition and similar groups have repeatedly scored victories against ghost gun restrictions nationwide, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects the means to obtain arms, including self-manufacture. Delaware’s law, partially halted since 2022, exemplifies post-Heller and post-Bruen overreach attempts to regulate away rights without historical precedent.

Law-abiding gun owners should view this as vindication: the injunction worked by preventing further improper enforcement, and the vacatur corrects one injustice. Yet it exposes systemic flaws in gun control regimes that prioritize prohibition over precision. True public safety comes from enforcing the law against criminals, not infringing on the rights of the innocent.

As Rigby v. Jennings moves toward a potential final resolution, this status update underscores the need for courts to rigorously scrutinize such restrictions. The right to keep and bear arms includes the right to make them. Delaware’s mishap serves as a cautionary tale: when governments overstep constitutional bounds, real people suffer, and justice demands correction. Gun rights advocates will continue fighting to ensure no more such errors occur, protecting the freedoms that define a free people.

Gatalog Sued By California Over 3D Gun CAD Files

Committed Gun-Grabbers Claim to Support the Second Amendment

---

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/PGtYjAr
via IFTTT

Virginia Gun Owners Defeat $500 Suppressor Tax

Virginia Gun Owners Defeat $500 Suppressor Tax img Duncan Johnson

The announcement that suppressors in the Commonwealth of Virginia will not be taxed is being considered a victory by many. The proposed suppressor tax has been removed, at least for now. It would seem Abigail Spanberger and her gang of anti-gun tyrants are getting the pushback they deserve. The Virginia gun grabbers might be starting to realize that taking advantage of the citizens they represent is not good optics for reelection, and gun owners across the Country are demanding Democrats obey and uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Especially the 2nd Amendment.

In an X post, American Suppressor Association President, Knox Williams made the announcement that the proposed $500 tax on suppressors is dead.

BREAKING: Virginia House Bill 207 — the bill imposing an egregious $500 tax on suppressors— has been unanimously tabled!

ASA President Knox Williams testified today, and now, we celebrate with you all. This is the power of the 2A community when we come together! pic.twitter.com/zXBGVkvmry

— American Suppressor Association (@AmSuppressor) February 10, 2026

In a House finance subcommittee hearing where they heard HB 207, Williams testified on behalf of the hearing protection and safety aspects of suppressors, and Gun Owners of America submitted testimony, among others. The result was unanimous in the committee to table the bill. At least for this legislative session, there will not be an attack on suppressors nor a financial penalty to Virginia gun owners for owning them.

The tax and registration of suppressors is nothing more than another attack on our 2nd Amendment and a way for anti-gun Legislators to punish the citizens they have been hired to represent. Gun grabbers in several blue states will go after anything they can, and it is about time we remind them of their boundaries and that there is a little thing called the Bill of Rights that protects us from these types of government overreach. Virginia gun owners are not shy when it comes to reminding their elected employees who they work for.

In a social media post, Williams thanked the committee members for recognizing the seriousness of this potential 2nd Amendment violation. He thanked the committee for their unanimous vote in favor of tabling HB 207.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) also got involved in this legislative battle. GOA’s official testimony to the committee on behalf of the organization and its members discussed several important factors including how the tax proposal is particularly harmful because it targets a highly regulated safety device and misunderstands how suppressor purchases already function under federal law.

GOA’s testimony pointed out the fact that HB 207 operates as a direct surcharge on Virginia businesses and Virginia consumers, placing in-state dealers at a competitive disadvantage and driving would-be customers and Virginia citizens toward other states to escape the draconian fees. They also reiterated the point that suppressors are widely recognized as safety devices that reduce noise pollution and hearing damage for lawful users, including hunters, sport shooters, and range operators.

GOA also pointed out the fact that HB 207 does not address criminal misuse, as suppressors are rarely used in violent crime and are already subject to extensive background checks and federal oversight. They even made the point that HB 207 represents poor fiscal policy, harms Virginia businesses, and should be rejected.

Chris Stone, Director of State Affairs for Gun Owners of America, said, “Gun Owners of America is proud of its Virginia members who flooded the House Finance Subcommittee and helped shut down this outrageous $500 tax on suppressors.” Stone went on to say, “This backdoor gun control scheme was an insult to law-abiding Virginians, and grassroots activists made sure legislators heard them loud and clear. HB 207 has been tabled for the 2026 session, but make no mistake, the anti-gun lobby is not backing down. Neither are we. We will continue fighting every gun control bill moving through the General Assembly and hold lawmakers accountable every step of the way.”

Although Virginia Democrats think they are above the Constitution, the People think otherwise. Gun-grabbers in the Commonwealth better buckle up if they think they will run roughshod over Virginia gun-owners and 2nd Amendment advocates. This is a battle they might want to reconsider.

ATF Reverses Course After Denying NFA Applications for Wanting to “Exercise God-Given Rights”

January 2026 NICS Background Checks Dip Slightly While NFA Checks Surge

---

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic, and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

---

from https://ift.tt/SYUtfX2
via IFTTT

Following ASA Advocacy, Virginia HB 207 Tabled Unanimously

Virginia State Flag iStock Oleksii Liskonih-1063334690

The American Suppressor Association (ASA) proudly announces that Virginia House Bill 207 has been defeated following a unanimous vote to table the legislation in the Virginia House Finance Committee.

HB 207 sought to impose an additional and egregious $500 tax on lawfully purchased suppressors in the Commonwealth of Virginia. After testimony from ASA’s Executive Director and the Executive Director of the Academy of Doctors of Audiology (ADA) outlining the constitutional, economic, and public health concerns surrounding the proposal, members of the Committee voted unanimously to halt the bill’s progress.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Elite Ifm7 Suppressor 7.62 Direct Thread - Elite Ifm7 Suppressor 7.62 Quick Detach Brown	Brownells.com	$ 1899.99 $ 1429.00
	Rugged Razor 762 Rifle Suppressor, .30 Cal Quick Detach Suppressor, Black	Bereli	$ 699.00
	Rugged Suppressors RX Blast Diverter/Brake for Rugged Suppressors - RX001	Palmetto State Armory	$ 227.99 $ 204.99
	Rugged Suppressor OP001 Suppressor Piston .578x28 Copper 17-4 Stainless Steel	Shooters Choice	$ 59.99

“This outcome is a powerful reminder of what can be accomplished when legislators are receptive to the facts,” said Knox Williams, Executive Director of the American Suppressor Association. “Suppressors are hearing protection devices – plain and simple. When the government attempts to tax safety equipment out of reach, it not only infringes on constitutional rights, it disproportionately harms lower-income and working-class Americans who deserve equal access to tools that protect their hearing.”

Suppressors significantly reduce the risk of permanent hearing damage for hunters, sport shooters, and firearms instructors. When Americans are priced out of accessing basic hearing protection, they face far greater long-term medical costs associated with irreversible hearing loss.

The American Suppressor Association remains committed to protecting the rights of law-abiding citizens and ensuring that suppressors are recognized for what they are: essential safety tools.

---

ABOUT THE AMERICAN SUPPRESSOR ASSOCIATION

Founded in 2011, the American Suppressor Association has been instrumental in promoting the rights of suppressor owners nationwide, advocating for legal reform, and educating the public about the benefits of suppressors. ASA’s successful campaigns have resulted in the legalization of suppressors in three states, the use of suppressors while hunting in 19 states, the defeat of numerous attempts to impose state level bans, and the dramatic improvements to NFA transfer times.

from https://ift.tt/0gV6KSn
via IFTTT

ATF Reverses Course After Denying NFA Applications for Wanting to “Exercise God-Given Rights”

ATF Reverses Course After Denying NFA Applications for Wanting to “Exercise God-Given Rights”, img Duncan Johnson

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has finally done what common sense and the Constitution demanded all along: approve the previously denied or voided Form 1 applications that sparked outrage in the gun community. NFA applications have been denied for answers to box 4 I with language that referenced constitutionally protected activity as a legitimate reason for possessing NFA items. In a stunning reversal, the agency has now approved the forms, including those rejected for constitutionally grounded purpose statements such as “exercise my God-given rights” and “for all lawful purposes, including justifiable homicide.” According to reports, the ATF has acknowledged they “should have never been denied” in the first place.

This development comes amid the post-tax era ushered in by the One Big Beautiful Bill, which zeroed out the $200 NFA tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs) effective January 1, 2026. With the revenue justification gutted, the ATF’s remaining registration regime was already on shaky ground, considering ongoing litigation like Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bondi (the “One Big Beautiful Lawsuit” backed by Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), Gun Owners of America (GOA), and allies). These approvals signal a retreat from the arbitrary enforcement that plagued early 2026 submissions.

Two outright denials where applicants cited intent to “exercise God-given rights,” were deemed “insufficient” by ATF examiners, despite no statute requiring a specific “acceptable” purpose beyond lawful use.

A third case involving an initial approval (dated January 25, 2026) for an SBR build was later voided during “routine quality control” because the purpose statement, “FOR ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES INCLUDING JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE,” wasn’t palatable enough. The email from Supervisory Legal Instruments Examiner Shannon Siviero instructed resubmission, treating honest self-defense language as disqualifying.

Many on the gun rights side of the argument claim these weren’t clerical slip-ups; it was blatant viewpoint discrimination. The ATF effectively punished applicants for refusing to sanitize their Second Amendment motivations into bland bureaucratic talk like “target shooting” or “hunting.” Such actions violated principles of due process, the Administrative Procedure Act’s (APA) ban on arbitrary-and-capricious agency conduct, and the core holding of Bruen: regulations on arms must align with historical tradition, not subjective agency whims.

That error was only corrected because angry gun owners applied overwhelming pressure. Most people who are unjustly denied never get that opportunity.

The real solution is simple: abolish the NFA and your entire unconstitutional agency along with it. https://t.co/lwHA8660LH

— National Association for Gun Rights (@gunrights) February 10, 2026

Now that approvals have been issued across these cases, the ATF tacitly admits the error. This isn’t just a win for the affected individuals. It is vindication for every law-abiding gun owner frustrated by the NFA’s remnants. Suppressors protect hearing and reduce noise; SBRs offer maneuverable, customizable platforms ideal for home defense and sporting use. Neither poses the “dangerous and unusual” threat Pam Bondi’s DOJ once claimed in court filings. Criminal misuse of registered NFA items remains vanishingly rare, according to ATF’s historical data.

This reversal exposes the fragility of the post-tax NFA regime. Without the taxing-power crutch upheld in Sonzinsky, registration becomes an unconstitutional infringement, a national gun registry that exceeds Congress’s enumerated authority and lacks a historical analogue under Bruen. The surge in Form 1 filings (over 150,000 in the first day of 2026 alone) overwhelmed the system, leading to hasty denials and voids that the agency now walks back. It reeks of panic: approve everything to avoid more bad press and stronger legal challenges.

From a pro-gun standpoint, this is progress, but not victory. Approvals don’t erase the infringement. They reveal the needless bureaucracy of fingerprints, photos, forms, and months-long waits. Law-abiding citizens shouldn’t need a bureaucratic blessing to exercise a pre-existing right. The Founding Fathers didn’t file Form 1s to shorten musket barrels for home defense.

These cases bolster arguments in Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bondi and similar suits: strike down registration for untaxed items entirely. Push Congress for full repeal via the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) or SHORT Act. Demand ATF reforms to prevent future flip-flops.

ATF’s correction of its errors is significant. It could signify positive changes from the top. Based on conversations AmmoLand News has had with sources inside the ATF, the top brass appears to want to change to be less hostile to gun owners, but with many entrenched bureaucrats, the change will not be overnight.  The fight will continue until the Second Amendment stands unencumbered, no permission slips, no arbitrary rejections, no “acceptable” phrasing required. Rights are not negotiable. Celebrate this win, double the effort to permanently end the imposed tyranny of the National Firearms Act.

NFA Tax Stamp Is DEAD! Suppressors and SBRs Have a $0 Tax Stamp

January 2026 NICS Background Checks Dip Slightly While NFA Checks Surge

---

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/WYeOgJc
via IFTTT

Update on Virginia ‘Assault Firearm’ Bans and Magazine Restrictions

Virginia Gun Bills Backpedal Under Pressure, but the Fight Is Far From Over Img Duncan Johnson

Thanks to strong resistance from gun owners across the state, and a message from Harmeet Dhillon, who is the head of the Second Amendment Division of the Civil Rights Department, the Virginia gun grabbers have been set back on their heels and have relented on a few things. That doesn’t mean we can relax. That means we speak louder and force them to abide by the Constitution.

This is a blatant violation of Supreme Court precedent and it will not stand. https://t.co/hezQAkbGsE

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) January 26, 2026

As of February 9, 2026, here is an update directly from Philip Van Cleave, President of Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL).

A group of gun bills has passed the Virginia Senate, and another group has passed the House. There are also more in progress. February 18th is a cutoff. Currently, three of the bills are being revised due to pressure from gun owners. None of these bills has been stopped, which is what the VCDL and gun owners will ultimately want. For now, some concessions are being discussed by the gun grabbers.

The house version of the so-called “assault firearm” ban is HB 217, and although it bans the purchase or resale of those firearms, it will allow you to keep the firearms you already own. After significant pressure, the Virginia gun grabbers were forced to put the “grandfather” clause back in place. You won’t be able to buy any new “assault firearms” after July 1st of this year, nor will you be able to sell the ones that you have if the legislation is ratified with the current language. In essence, you’re frozen in place.

The gun grabbers are considering walking back their ban on 18 to 20-year-olds’ possession of “assault firearms.” The latest revisions have also added a grandfather clause for possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Spanberger and her gang of gun grabbers thought they would get away with quietly removing the grandfather clause, but they were met with resistance that corrected their behavior.

SB749 brings with it all the same elements as HB217, with the exception of a 15-round magazine capacity limitation. So, you will still be able to buy and sell magazines that hold up to 15 rounds. This will likely be a point of contention between the House and Senate. We will see how this turns out.

SB727 still restricts the public carry of rifles and shotguns classified as “assault firearms,” but it walked back the public carry ban on handguns that could be classified as “assault firearms.”

Philip Van Cleave, President of Virginia Citizens Defense League, had this to say to AmmoLand:

“While pressure from gun owners has caused the Senate and the House to backpedal on some of these bills, and they are better than they were, we still do not support these bills. They are still wrong. Taking away guns like these from anybody is wrong and we will continue to fully oppose these bills until they are defeated and/or not signed into law.”

The recent concessions forced out of Richmond did not come from goodwill or compromise—they came from organized resistance. Virginia gun owners spoke up, applied sustained pressure, and exposed the legal and political weaknesses behind these proposals. That pressure worked, at least for now.

But make no mistake: a bad bill that is slightly less bad is still a bad bill.

What we are seeing is not a change of heart, but a tactical retreat. The same lawmakers who quietly attempted to strip grandfather clauses and criminalize common firearms are still pushing legislation that flatly contradicts Supreme Court precedent and treats the exercise of a fundamental right as a problem to be managed. As long as these bills remain alive, the threat remains real.

The goal has never been temporary concessions—it is the total defeat of these unconstitutional laws.

As VCDL President Philip Van Cleave made clear, gun owners cannot accept half-measures, freezes on future ownership, or age-based bans dressed up as “compromises.” Rights delayed, restricted, or rationed are rights denied.

Crossover day is approaching fast, and the coming weeks will determine whether these bills collapse under scrutiny or advance toward a governor’s desk. The outcome will depend entirely on whether Virginia’s gun owners stay engaged, vocal, and unrelenting.

This fight is far from over—and silence now would undo everything gained so far. AmmoLand will continue tracking every move, every amendment, and every vote. Stay alert. Stay involved.

Stay tuned. More to come on this in the upcoming weeks.

---

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic, and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

---

from https://ift.tt/le7XWb1
via IFTTT

January 2026 NICS Background Checks Dip Slightly While NFA Checks Surge

Opinion

GOA FOIA Shows NICS-Index-Self-Submission Form Was Used Beyond the FBI, iStock-919659512

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) adjusted figures for January 2026 show a slight decrease in the number of checks compared to 2025. From the National Shooting Sports Foundation:

“The January 2026 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 1,198,879 is a decrease of 0.7 percent compared to the January 2025 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,207,557. For comparison, the unadjusted January 2026 FBI NICS figure of 2,172,185 reflects a 5.6 percent decrease from the unadjusted FBI NICS figure of 2,299,989 in January 2025.”

As noted by the NSSF, the unadjusted NICS numbers, which include checks for various gun permits and re-checks for the same, are down 5.6%. This is likely a reflection of the increasing “permitless” or Constitutional Carry states.

On a positive note, the NSSF’s report on NFA items saw a massive increase compared to 2025. From the NSSF:

“The January 2026 NFA figure of 206,871 is an increase of 121.2 percent compared to the January 2025 figure of 93,518.”

Other than a slight jump up in 2006 – 2008, the rise in firearm sales reflected in the adjusted NICS figures corresponds to both the Heller decision in 2008 and the election of Barack Obama as President in late 2008. The prominent spikes in sales occurred just after the re-election of President Obama in 2013, the run-up to the election of President Donald Trump in 2016, and the aftermath of the 2020 election during the first year of the Biden administration.

By comparison, the years of the George W. Bush presidency, the first Trump term, the last three years of the Biden Administration, and the first year of the second Trump term have been relatively flat.  The jump from 2005 to 2025 has been enormous. 2000 – 2005 sales look flat and similar to 2022 – 2026.  When adjusted for population increase, estimated gun sales per capita have increased in January.

The US population 2000-2005 averaged about 287 million, with adjusted NICS about 535,000 for those first-of-the-year months. From 2022 to 2026, the population averaged about 337 million, with adjusted NICS about 1.20 million for those Januarys.

Several factors are in play. Foremost are the enormous changes in the political structure since 2008. President Obama, elected to bring closure to racial division in the United States, did the opposite, exacerbating and escalating racial strife to levels not seen since the 1960s. Obama’s policies created a weak USA, the elevation of Iran, a weak NATO, and advanced the climate hoax for the benefit of China. The reaction to these destructive policies was President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden was President Obama’s third term. It was disastrous. President Trump, in his Second term, is presiding over a counter-revolution to the “fundamental change” President Obama forced on the nation.

Both the Republican and the Democratic parties have been unwilling to take the heat to step away from the crippling and suicidal debt inflicted on the USA. The only solution appears to be extraordinary growth. President Trump has been promoting this potential avenue to survival.

Part of the growth is a tremendous increase in productivity in the United States. It is one of the reasons for the rise in firearm sales. Excellent, practical firearms are historically cheap in the United States, when considered in constant dollars. The primary reason is that the cost of making them has decreased due to advances in technology. This correspondent grew up with the Savage 99. It is an excellent deer rifle. So are the Winchester 94 and the Marlin 336.  They are wonderful examples of the gun-maker’s art at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the smokeless powder, non-corrosive primer era.

The requirements to produce those rifles are not well-suited to the more efficient technologies of the 21st century.  A new rifle in these models costs over $1200. A new semi-auto based on the AR15 platform performs as well, with better accuracy, for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost.  Good centerfire defensive handguns are available new for less than the constant-dollar cost of a surplus 1911A1 in 1960. A new, semi-auto .22 rimfire can be had for less than a quarter of the constant dollar cost of a semi-auto .22 in 1960. Despite rising prices, choking government regulation, and a recent dip in sales, NICS checks remain higher than the plateau of the early 2000s.

At the moment, sales appear to be leveling off. There may be some market saturation. Handguns have become more popular than rifles or shotguns.

Serious innovation might be rewarded in the future, but it is a gamble. Rising prosperity may bring more sales. Rising security may inhibit sales. The Trump Department of Justice has declared the USPS ban on mailing handguns unconstitutional. How this may affect sales is unclear.

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

Robert Cekada Poised to become Next ATF Director After Confirmation Hearing

---

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/kriF0Xz
via IFTTT

Billionaire-funded 5th Edition of RAND’s Gun Policy Report as Anti-gun as First Four

Billionaire-funded 5th Edition of RAND’s Gun Policy Report as Anti-gun as First Four, iStock-2218869985

Once anti-gun billionaires Laura and John Arnold sent another check to the RAND Corporation for its annual report, “The Science of Gun Policy,” there was little doubt about what RAND researchers would find, since the Arnolds pay all the bills.

The annual report is part of a larger anti-gun initiative, which RAND has labeled “Guns in America.”

Before 2018, RAND funded the entire initiative themselves, through “unrestricted gifts from RAND supporters and income from operations.”

After 2018, however, the Arnolds pay for all of it through their left-wing philanthropy foundation called Arnold Ventures.

And for the fifth year in a row, the billionaire couple certainly got what they paid for.

Six RAND researchers needed more than 440 pages to claim that guns are bad, and that more anti-gun laws are needed.

Here are their major findings:

• The government should be able to order you to lock up your guns.
• Stand-your-ground laws are dangerous.
• The country needs to raise the minimum age to purchase a firearm.
• Waiting periods reduce homicides and suicides.
• Background checks for even private sales reduce homicides.
• Laws barring gun rights to those subject to a domestic violence restraining order decrease homicides.

Here are their recommendations:

• All states should order you to lock up your guns.
• All states should repeal stand-your-ground laws.
• All states should ban concealed carry and permitless carry.
• All states should raise the minimum age to purchase firearms and ammunition.
• All states should ban gun ownership by anyone subject to a restraining order.
• All states should require background checks, even for private sales.

RAND states that its report is cited by mainstream media 75-100 times a year.

They did offer some good news. This is the last edition of the report, which RAND says is still needed.

“In the United States, gun policies of every kind are being reconsidered and relitigated in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which fundamentally altered the standards used to assess the constitutionality of firearm laws,” RAND states.

Most gun owners should strongly disagree with this comment, regardless of the numbers of PhDs held by its authors.

Bruen, did not fundamentally alter the standard used to assess the constitutionality of gun laws. Bruen simply returned it to normal, away from all of the confusing legal mess the anti-gunners had created and used for decades.

The Arnolds

On August 5, 2024, we published a special report about the Arnolds and their anti-gun activities titled “Billionaire anti-gun philanthropists backing biased anti-gun research.”

The story revealed how the Arnolds are a major part—the first step—of producing anti-gun information, which is then circulated across the country.

“An investigation by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project reveals how a former Enron trader and his wife are quietly paying millions of dollars every year to colleges, universities, think tanks and other groups for biased anti-gun research, which is then cited as gospel by the corporate media and used as propaganda by anyone who wants to infringe upon law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights,” the story states.

Most disturbing was the vast amount of money the couple paid for anti-gun “research,” which was conducted by RAND and other groups.

According to their nonprofit’s 2022 IRS form 990, the couple paid RAND at total of $2.8 million, of which $1.7 million was for anti-gun research. That same year, the couple paid more than $1.8 million for anti-gun research from other groups.

The couple remains very active in the anti-gun community. Recently, they awarded more than one-half million dollars for a study in Chicago, New York City, Texas and Washington D.C., which evaluates “the impact of prosecutor-led diversion programs for non-violent gun offenses.”

Takeaways

As we said just a year ago, the Arnolds have created a pipeline of sorts. Cash goes in one end and anti-gun propaganda emerges from the other, and given its storied 80-year history, it’s sad that RAND is playing along.

What their researchers presented was overwritten nonsense, of course, and given that it took them more than 440 pages, it may be the most overwritten anti-gun document ever produced. In fact, I’ve seen basically the same false claims on one-page brochures from very poorly funded anti-gun groups.

When the first story ran, Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, pointed out that we don’t have anything as elaborate as this anti-gun pipeline process, adding “We don’t need it. We simply rely upon the truth.”

That, friends, remains very true.

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

Anti-gun Group 97Percent is Back, Now Led by Anti-gun Ex-cop

Democrats Push Ammo Sales Ban while Courts Question Similar State Restrictions

---

About Lee Williams

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

---

from https://ift.tt/Zc8qNjd
via IFTTT

CCRKBA Blasts Sweeping New Mexico Gun Control Legislation

New Mexico Reverting to Old Mexico? IMG iStock-884193540.jpg

Anti-gun-rights Democrats—this time in New Mexico—are once again trying to reduce violent gun-related crime by penalizing people who aren’t responsible, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms says in response.

“Senate Bill 17, which was passed by state Senate Democrats over the weekend, would ban semi-automatic firearms and original capacity magazines,” said CCRKBA Managing Director Andrew Gottlieb, “but it’s not going to prevent criminals from committing crimes. All this does s create the false impression that Democrats are doing something, when in reality they’re not accomplishing anything at all, except for adding burdens to firearms retailers and the law-abiding gun owners they serve.

“Proponents of this legislation have resorted to the usual inflammatory rhetoric we’ve come to expect, by calling these firearms and magazines ‘weapons of war,’” Gottlieb stated. “Tens of millions of law-abiding American citizens, including many New Mexicans, own such firearms and magazines, and they’re not a danger to anyone.”

The legislation, which may be read here, spans 17 pages. It passed on a 22-17 vote, with two Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against it.

“According to the World Population Review,” Gottlieb noted, “New Mexico is in the middle in terms of overall gun ownership, ranking 25th among the fifty states. It is astonishing that this sort of legislation is being pushed to the detriment of firearms retailers and their customers, none of whom has harmed anybody. Ratcheting down on the rights of honest people is not the way to fight crime.

“We’re encouraging gun owners in New Mexico to contact their state representatives and ask them to reject this legislation,” Gottlieb said. “Lawmakers need to go back to the drawing board and sit down with people from the firearms community to find solutions which do not penalize honest gun owners and firearms retailers.”

New Mexico Legislature Debates Ban on Semi-Automatics and Magazines Over 10 Rounds

Trump DOJ Submits Brief in Massachusetts Handgun Roster Case

---

About the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

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