ATF’s proposed rule would reduce some fingerprint and photo requirements for NFA firearm applications, including suppressors and SBRs. IMG Jim Grant
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) unveiled a new proposed rule that would simplify the process of acquiring National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms.
The ATF filed a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register today. The rule is titled “Fingerprint and Photograph Requirements for Firearms Applications” [Docket No. ATF-2026-0397; ATF 2025R-14P]. It modifies 27 CFR parts 478 and 479 to reduce burdens on the American gun-owning population by removing several key requirements for filing ATF Forms 4 and 1.
Currently, when a gun owner submits an NFA form to the ATF, they must submit two fingerprint cards and a 2” x 2” photo, similar to a passport photo. The proposed rule will change that. NFA applicants no longer need to provide two separate fingerprint cards. This reduces the number to a single card. Although, since most applicants use electronic EFT fingerprints, it will not be a noticeable change for most. The use of digital fingerprints for electronic submission will be codified. Codifying the acceptance of digital fingerprints will make it harder for future ATF regimes to eliminate the acceptance of EFT files, requiring gun owners to mail in paper cards.
What Changes for NFA Trusts
The real change in fingerprinting will apply to NFA trust applicants. The proposed rule removes the fingerprinting requirement entirely, meaning if someone uses a trust, they will not be required to submit fingerprints. This change is limited to customers with NFA trusts because of federal statutes. The ATF claims that the FBI only requests fingerprints for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) about 1% of the time.
Individuals and trust holders will no longer need to submit a passport photo. They will be able to prove their identity with a scan or photo of a government-issued ID. This change will eliminate the burden on gun owners to have to seek out a place to get their pictures taken. The ATF can request photos and fingerprints only in a few circumstances to complete the FBI background check.
The ATF believes the change will not affect public safety and will help it achieve its goal of being less burdensome to the American public regarding the right to keep and bear arms. This is the latest rule to be introduced by the ATF in its attempt to restructure its regulatory powers to be less adversarial toward the American gun owner. After years of a Joe Biden ATF going after Americans for just wanting to exercise their God-given right, the changes have drawn a rare nod of approval from the gun community.
The rule is set to be published on Monday, July 6, 2026. There will be a 90-day comment period where anti-gun groups are expected to flood the comments with attempts to change the ATF’s mind, but the data is not on its side. This change is long overdue, and more changes are expected in the coming weeks.
Gun Owners Should Comment on the Rule
Gun owners and pro-gun organizations should make their voices heard through the comment process. With this new rule, the injunctions over the Virginia “assault weapons” ban, the Department of Justice suing Virginia over the ban and California over its Glock ban, and the Supreme Court granting certiorari in a couple of “assault weapon” ban cases, it has not been a good week for anti-gun zealots.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
Gun-control advocates are shifting their messaging from outright bans to public-health-style “gun violence prevention” campaigns. iStock-483315547
“America has a massive gun violence problem,” Belgian economist and founder of Money & Macro Media Joeri Schasfoort declares on MSN. “Compared to other wealthy countries, the U.S. murder rate is extremely high, and behind most of these deaths is the pull of the trigger.”
That’s three bits of concentrated disinformation that unquestioning, low-information viewers will accept as authoritative, packed into just the first 10 seconds of the video.
The first is that “gun violence” is a politically engineered and emotionally charged propaganda term that attributes actions to inert objects and is then used to sway public opinion by lumping separate issues like justifiable homicides and suicides in with criminal misuse of firearms.
The second is the impression that violence plagues all of America. As economist and author John Lott has shown, “Most counties experience no murders, a smaller subset of counties where there are a few murders, and then a minuscule subset of counties where murders are very common.”
The third is the undefined and cherry-picked chart of “other wealthy countries,” specifically noting two prominent ones that are consistently omitted from such displays. Anybody see Russia or Mexico listed, both with more restrictive gun laws and higher violent crime than the U.S.? Whether one consults the UN, the IMF, the World Bank or the CIA Factbook, they both have a larger GDP than some of the nations that qualify as “developed” when it suits gun-grabber purposes.
Schasfoort then declares, “The obvious solution is then to ban guns, but…”
The pesky right to keep and bear arms gets in the way of that, along with statements from some gun owners who want no part of prohibitions.
So a ban is “unlikely to happen,” Schasfoort admits. “Luckily, I have some good news. Social scientists have recently conducted extensive experiments that confirm that U.S. gun violence can actually be drastically reduced without banning guns.”
Bear in mind there are two kinds of luck, “good news” is in the eye of the beholder, and he’s still using that loaded term. Still, let’s hear him out and see what the “scientists” are hypothesizing. After all, we’re only 44 seconds into the video at this point and we still have over 18 minutes to go.
It seems the University of Pennsylvania has concluded that violence has been statistically reduced in select Philadelphia locations when vacant land was cleaned up and developed into community centers. The working theory is that drawing people out together drives clandestine criminal activity to go somewhere else, and that people present can act as “violence interrupters” to mediate disputes. What’s unclear is if the claimed reduction in “gun violence” is an anomaly that will hold and what other factors might be at play (including increases in “legal” gun sales). But OK, at least they’re not demanding infringements.
To give the contention gravitas, Schasfoort brings in Chicago professor and economist Jens Ludwig, “one of the leading researchers on gun violence [sic],” who also happens to be “Pritzker Director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab,” with all that implies. Most homicides, we are told, aren’t planned with “calculated criminal intent,” but arise “from fights or arguments that escalated beyond control.”
So, it comes from a sense of unearned entitlement, anger management issues, and poor impulse control. Recalling Lott’s findings, in a “miniscule subset,” that should surprise no one.
“The murder rate in the United States today is almost exactly the same as it was in 1900,” Ludwig explains. If you think about it, that admission doesn’t do much for the prohibitionist argument. Nor do the facts about how many guns there are in this country. As for the nod to Japan and South Korea having essentially disarmed populations and the “lowest homicide rates in the world,” they also have homogenous populations. It’s an inconvenient truth that the millions of members of groups like NRA, GOA, SAF, and other national and state groups, the most heavily armed civilian population on the planet, are every bit as statistically peaceable. When 80,000 armed gun owners show up at an annual meeting, there are plenty of opportunities for arguments to arise that never result in shots being fired.
Not according to the “leading researcher.”
“The research that I’ve done and what other people have done show that when a place has more guns on net, the murder rate goes up, so whatever deterrent effect more gun ownership might have to prevent crime is outweighed by the effects of guns increasing lethality of interpersonal conflict,” Ludwig, who apparently has never been to an NRA convention or a competition match, or Appleseed training, or an armed march, proclaims.
Again, attributing the inability of that “minuscule subset” to control its passions on the rest of the Republic is the essence of “gun control.” And gun possession is not the same thing as gun ownership.
There’s also a carrot (as if you can bribe predators) and stick analogy that doesn’t factor in a truism—while violence to the public can be temporarily curbed when those who can’t be trusted with a gun are in cages, releasing them makes further victimization inevitable. Also, BAM (Becoming a Man) training can only go so far when the Democrats who rule in those areas can’t seem to define what a man is. And good grief, the example they present is someone who thinks not murderously assaulting a person who inadvertently bumps into him is a major behavioral achievement. Don’t be surprised to see that guy in the news before too long.
There’s plenty more to go through in the video (including the purposeful omission of attributing violence reductions to armed citizens and the inevitable vulnerabilities of “gun free zones”) but there’s not much point to going on — except to encourage readers to watch the rest of it with a critical eye now that we’re familiar with how these people operate, what they say, and what they don’t.
It’s good, a victory actually, that people who would like to ban guns – and that, of course, is their ultimate goal – have a sense that it’s not going to happen politically, at least in the near term. But just because they talk about “progress” without prohibitions doesn’t mean they’ve given up on the idea. The smarter gun-grabbers see which way the momentum is going, and two recent preliminary injunctions against Virginia’s semi-auto ban and the Supreme Court granting cert to national challenges show them that demanding bans — at this time — is a political non-starter.
Let Democrats advance in the midterms with an eye toward recapturing the White House (and SCOTUS appointments) in 2028, and expect to see gun bans back with a vengeance.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
ATF Director Robert Cekada said all Virginia Form 1 and Form 4 submissions were processed before the state’s July 1 gun-ban deadline. Image Duncan Johnson
ATF Director Robert Cekada gave Virginia gun owners a rare bit of good news this week, announcing that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had processed every Form 1 and Form 4 submitted by Virginians ahead of the state’s July 1 gun-ban deadline.
Virginia legal gun owners, We heard you and we’ve acted.
As of today, every Form 1 & Form 4 submitted by Virginians was processed before the anticipated July 1 change to Virginia law that would prohibit the import, sale, manufacture, purchase & transfer of certain firearms. 1/2
ATF Says Virginia Forms Were Processed Before Deadline
According to Cekada, ATF completed processing for all pending Form 1 and Form 4 submissions from Virginians before the anticipated effective date of HB 217 and SB 749, the new Virginia laws signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger on May 14. Those laws restrict the future importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines holding more than 15 rounds.
A Form 1 is used by a lawful applicant seeking approval to make an NFA-regulated firearm, such as a short-barreled rifle. A Form 4 is used for the transfer of an NFA item, such as a suppressor, machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or other covered item.
If the government sat on those forms past July 1, some lawful Virginians could have been trapped by a state deadline while waiting on federal paperwork. Cekada said ATF acted to prevent that.
“I remain committed to ensuring lawful firearm owners are not negatively impacted by administrative or statutory changes,” Cekada wrote, adding that ATF would continue working to make its processes “fast, fair and accessible” to lawful applicants.
That is not the kind of sentence gun owners are used to hearing from ATF leadership. For decades, the agency has been viewed by much of the gun community as a hostile bureaucracy more interested in technical traps than protecting rights. That history does not disappear because of one X post. But credit is due where credit is due: this was the right move.
Gun Owners Praise The Move, But Still Want The NFA Gone
The reaction from gun owners was swift and largely positive. Virginia NFA applicants and Second Amendment advocates praised the announcement as a win for lawful owners who were racing against an arbitrary deadline created by Richmond politicians. Many in the gun community saw the move as evidence that the new ATF leadership is at least listening when law-abiding citizens are about to be punished by the collision of state bans and federal processing delays.
That praise came with a healthy dose of skepticism, too. Gun owners are not suddenly forgetting the the ATF’s history as the enforcement arm of politically motivated anti-gun agendas or their continued defense of the NFA. Still, many recognized that clearing the Virginia queue was exactly what a federal agency should do when its own approval process could otherwise become the reason citizens lose access to lawfully owned property.
Turns out all the Virginia “illegal” gun owners were able to make and transfer whatever NFA firearms they wanted too.
Grateful for this as a Virginian who just had his Form 1 approved, but the NFA is a failed gun control measure that has never stopped a single criminal.
The announcement also landed in the middle of legal chaos in Virginia. Gun rights groups have challenged the new ban, and court injunctions have already blocked enforcement by Virginia State Police while the lawsuits continue. The state is expected to keep fighting to revive the law, but the injunctions have created uncertainty over how, when, and against whom the ban can be enforced.
ATF moved before the deadline instead of letting lawful owners twist in the wind. For Virginia gun owners caught in the NFA pipeline, that mattered.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
The Justice Department is suing California over its Glock ban and Handgun Roster, arguing the state is blocking access to common modern handguns protected by the Second Amendment. IMG Duncan Johnson
The Trump Justice Department has sued California to stop the state’s new “Glock ban” and major parts of its restrictive Handgun Roster, arguing that California is violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners.
The lawsuit, United States v. California and Robert Bonta, was filed July 1, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It names the State of California and Attorney General Rob Bonta in his official capacity as head of the California Department of Justice.
This is not just another private gun-rights lawsuit. This is the United States government suing California and saying, in plain terms, that enforcing these handgun restrictions amounts to a civil-rights violation.
At issue are two California schemes: Penal Code section 27595, commonly called the “Glock ban,” and the state’s Unsafe Handgun Act, which controls what handguns may be sold through California’s Handgun Roster.
DOJ Targets California’s Glock Ban
California’s Glock ban took effect July 1. The law prohibits licensed firearms dealers from selling, offering for sale, transferring, or delivering what the state calls “semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistols.”
The statute does not use the word “Glock,” but DOJ says the target is obvious.
According to the complaint, the law is “commonly known as the ‘Glock Ban,’ because it bans the sale of virtually all Glock and Glock-style pistols.” DOJ says the restriction reaches not only Glock-branded pistols but also popular Glock-pattern handguns such as the Palmetto State Armory Dagger, Ruger RXM, and many Shadow Systems models.
California claims these pistols are dangerous because criminals can illegally install conversion devices, often called Glock switches, that turn some semiautomatic pistols into machine guns. DOJ’s answer is simple: conversion devices are already illegal. California cannot ban ordinary, lawful handguns because a criminal might illegally modify one.
The complaint uses a comparison every gun owner understands. A legal shotgun can be turned into an illegal short-barreled shotgun with a hacksaw, but that does not give the state power to ban shotguns. A semiautomatic rifle can be illegally converted into a machine gun, but that does not make ordinary semiautomatic rifles illegal.
In DOJ’s words, “California’s ban on the sale of the most popular handgun in America obviously violates the Second Amendment.”
Handgun Roster Also Challenged
The lawsuit goes beyond the Glock ban. DOJ also attacks California’s Handgun Roster requirements, including the chamber-load indicator, magazine-disconnect mechanism, and microstamping rules that have blocked many modern handguns from the California market.
DOJ leans heavily on Boland v. Bonta, where a federal judge previously said Californians have a constitutional right to acquire and use “state-of-the-art handguns” for self-defense and should not be forced to settle for decade-old models.
That is the heart of the roster problem. California does not merely regulate handguns. It decides which handguns ordinary citizens may buy, while carving out exceptions for law enforcement and other favored groups.
The complaint argues that the Second Amendment protects the right to acquire arms, not just possess whatever old models the state leaves on the shelf. A right to keep and bear arms means little if California can choke off the sale of modern, commonly used defensive pistols.
Civil Rights Law Enters The Fight
The most important part of the lawsuit may be the legal vehicle DOJ is using.
The United States brought the case under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, a federal civil-rights statute usually associated with “pattern or practice” misconduct by government agencies and law enforcement officers.
DOJ’s theory is direct. California DOJ Bureau of Firearms agents and other state law-enforcement officers enforce the state’s firearms laws. If those laws violate the Second Amendment, then their enforcement creates a pattern or practice of depriving citizens of constitutional rights.
Gun rights are civil rights. When a state criminalizes access to commonly owned arms, it is not merely making “gun policy.” It is violating rights protected by the Constitution.
Bonta Refused DOJ’s Demand
The filing came after Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon warned California on June 24 that DOJ was prepared to sue if the state refused to stop enforcing the challenged laws.
On June 30, Bonta rejected that demand. In a response letter, he said the California Department of Justice “will not agree” to cease enforcement, acknowledge the laws are unconstitutional, or enter a consent decree.
Not that I ever expect good faith from Rob Bonta and my clownshow state of California, but there is so much bullshit in this response I have to do a short thread on it breaking it down. https://t.co/Nxtnkt536L
Bonta defended the Unsafe Handgun Act and Penal Code section 27595 as “commonsense handgun design safety laws.” He also pointed to pending Ninth Circuit roster cases, including Boland v. Bonta and Renna v. Bonta, and claimed hundreds of handgun models remain available for sale in California.
But the Constitution is not satisfied by a government-approved menu. The question is not whether California allows some handguns. The question is whether it can ban the commercial sale of common modern handguns while pretending the Second Amendment remains intact.
DOJ says it cannot.
The lawsuit asks the court for declaratory judgment and a permanent statewide injunction blocking enforcement of the Glock ban and the challenged roster provisions. For California gun owners, this could become one of the most important handgun cases in the country.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
The DOJ has sued Virginia over its new “assault firearms” ban, arguing the law targets commonly owned firearms protected by the Second Amendment. IMG Duncan Johnson
The United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division filed a lawsuit against Virginia following the state’s enactment of a new “assault firearms” ban.
The ban, which currently has two state-level injunctions against it, was due to go into effect on July 1. It bans some of the most commonly owned firearms in the country, such as the AR-15, for having certain cosmetic features, such as threaded barrels. Virginia, once a gun-friendly state, has become one of the most hostile toward the ownership of firearms. The bill, known as SB 749, was signed by Governor Abigail Spanberger, a former member of Moms Demand Action, earlier this year.
Just as the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, the AR-15 is not a second-class arm. As promised, @CivilRights is moving fast to vindicate Virginians’ rights to acquire the most popular rifle in the country for self-defense.https://t.co/pn1YlRQ1h4
The brief reads: “From before the beginning of this Nation’s existence, Virginians have provided indispensable leadership in the cause of constitutional liberty. Indeed, Virginian James Madison is, for good reason, known as the Father of the Constitution. Madison also drafted and proposed the Bill of Rights, which became effective on December 15, 1791, when Virginia became the eleventh state to ratify it.”
The lawsuit highlights how the bill uses “politically charged rhetoric to describe the arms to which it applied.” Terms such as “assault firearms” and “assault weapons” didn’t exist until 1989, when anti-gun advocates coined them to confuse the public with the term “assault rifle.” This distinction has been highlighted in the past by the Supreme Court in an Associate Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting opinion.
Thomas wrote in Stenberg v. Carhart: “Prior to 1989, the term assault weapon did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of assault rifles so as to allow an attack on as many additional firearms as possible on the basis of undefined ‘evil’ appearance.”
Bruen, Wolford, and the Second Amendment Test
The DOJ argues that the banned firearms fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment. According to the recent Wolford decision, the only two questions that can be asked at step one of a Bruen analysis are whether the people being burdened are members of “the people” — that is, law-abiding citizens — and whether the arm is bearable. In this case, the answer to both is an unequivocal yes.
In step two of the Bruen analysis, the burden falls to the state to show, through historical analogue evidence, that the firearm law is consistent with the nation’s tradition and history of firearms regulation. States have a track record of citing racist Black Codes from the Reconstruction era to justify their bans, but once again, in Wolford, the Supreme Court was clear that it will no longer accept such analogues.
The brief also covers how these arms are in common use nationwide, with millions in circulation. The fallback position of anti-gun states has been to claim they are not in common use for “self-defense,” but Wolford makes it clear that common use includes both offensive and defensive purposes. The DOJ further highlights that AR-15s are rarely used in crimes by noting that the number of murders committed with all long guns is far lower than those committed with handguns, knives, blunt objects, or hands and feet.
A Major Federal Escalation
This federal lawsuit represents a significant escalation in the ongoing battle to protect Second Amendment rights against unconstitutional state-level restrictions. By directly challenging Virginia’s “assault firearms” ban on both textual and historical grounds, the Department of Justice is reinforcing the Bruen framework and sending a clear message that politically motivated gun control measures cannot override constitutional protections.
As the case progresses, it could set important precedents that safeguard commonly owned firearms and curb the use of misleading terminology designed to erode public support for the right to keep and bear arms.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
The U.S Supreme Court has agreed to hear combined cases from Illinois and Connecticut regarding bans on modern semiautomatic rifles. IMG Duncan Johnson
The U.S. Supreme Court has finally agreed to hear the question gun owners have been waiting years to see answered: whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess modern semiautomatic rifles such as the AR-15.
For Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the reaction was simple.
“Finally!”
The Court granted review in two major Second Amendment cases: Grant v. Higgins, a challenge to Connecticut’s ban, and Viramontes v. Cook County, a challenge to Cook County, Illinois’ ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The cases will be consolidated, putting one of the most important unresolved Second Amendment questions directly before the justices.
Supreme Court Takes the AR-15 Ban Question
That question is straightforward. Can the government ban rifles that are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes, or are those rifles protected “arms” under the Constitution?
Gun owners have been watching the high court kick this can down the road time after time.
The case of Grant v. Higgins had been distributed for conference 17 times since January, with no action until now. The other case, known as Viramontes v. Cook County, had been distributed 22 times since last November. The history of these distributions has been tracked by the popular SCOTUSblog for months.
Two Major Rifle Ban Cases Will Be Heard Together
Grant v. Higgins is a SAF case out of Connecticut, originally known as Grant v. Lamont, was filed by SAF, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and three private citizens in September 2022, three months after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen which, according to the original complaint, “clarified the proper legal standard under which courts must analyze Second Amendment cases.”
Viramontes v. Cook County is a case challenging the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in Cook County, Illinois. SAF is joined in this case by the Firearms Policy Coalition and three private citizens, all Cook County residents. This case was originally filed in August 2021. At the time this case was filed, Gottlieb said in a statement to the media, “The guns on the ban list are commonly owned and used all over the country for all kinds of legitimate purposes including hunting, target shooting, competition, predator control and recreation. Citizens have a right to own such firearms, and to ban them is an affront to the Constitution.”
The history of both cases underscores the sluggishness of movement of Second Amendment cases through the federal courts.
SAF: “A Right Delayed Is a Right Denied”
Upon hearing that both cases have been granted high court review, the SAF team was elated. Gottlieb advised Ammoland News that the cases will be consolidated.
“We are very excited that SCOTUS will hear our two very important Second Amendment Foundation cases,” Gottlieb said. “These gun bans should have been overturned years ago. A right delayed is a right denied.”
SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut added in a statement to the press, “The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these pivotal cases will finally provide the courts the necessary guidance as it relates to the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The modern semi-automatic rifles banned in Cook County, Connecticut and elsewhere are among the most commonly owned firearms in the country, placing them well within the scope of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, and it’s hard to argue that a type of rifle that potentially outnumbers Ford F-150 trucks in America doesn’t meet that standard.”
Bill Sack, SAF’s senior director of Legal Operations, said via email, “The Second Amendment Foundation is thrilled the Supreme Court has just now agreed to take two of our Assault Weapons Ban challenges, Grant v. Higgins and Viramontes v. Cook County. Both of these cases provide the perfect vehicle for the Supreme Court to roundly reject the categorical bans on commonly owned firearms that Cook County, Illinois, Connecticut, and other gun-control happy jurisdictions around the country have adopted.”
While it is never clear how the Supreme Court will decide any case, it is not likely the justices would agree to hear these cases if they simply intended to maintain the current status quo.
There was already a strong hint about how the national media may be covering the combined cases. NBC News reported Tuesday, “The measures in question ban what are described by gun violence protection advocates as “assault weapons,” which include AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles.
“AR-15-style weapons have been used in multiple high-profile mass shootings, including the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, in which 20 children and six adults were killed, as well as the 2022 shooting at an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, in which 19 children and two teachers were killed.”
The Supreme Court will convene for its fall session on the first Monday of October. Amy Howe, writing at SCOTUSblog, predicted oral arguments will be heard sometime in the fall.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
“The Supreme Court didn’t skip the AR-15 case this term out of hostility or neglect — they ran out of bandwidth on a generational docket, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh has already telegraphed that the AR-15 case is coming as soon as October 2026.” — Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner Host
I’m often asked why the Supreme Court didn’t take an AR-15 or “large-capacity” magazine case this term. The implication is usually that the Court is dodging the Second Amendment. But there is another, more basic explanation: the Justices have one of the most packed, precedent-setting dockets in living memory, and Chief Justice John Roberts decided to ration the Court’s political capital for now.
To be the smartest person in the room on this, you have to start with the institutional reality. The Supreme Court hears roughly 60 to 70 cases per term on the merits docket. Every granted case demands briefing, oral argument, conference deliberation, opinion drafting, concurrences, and dissents, and the Justices have themselves and a small group of clerks. Behind the merits docket sit thousands of cert petitions a year, each one screened and assessed. And on top of all that is the emergency docket (sometimes called the “shadow docket”), which consists of urgent applications like the one Virginia just filed and lost trying to engage in mid-decade redistricting. Those applications get no oral argument but still consume enormous attention.
The Generational Docket That Crowded Out The AR-15 Ban Cases
Let’s look at what is on the merits docket this term. The Court is deciding birthright citizenship — whether children of illegal aliens and tourist visa holders are automatically American citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s deciding Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Remain in Mexico fight, as well as Mullin v. Doe, the case over President Trump’s authority to revoke the Temporary Protected Status that Biden handed to Haitian nationals. It has already decided Learning Resources v. Trump, addressing the President’s authority concerning tariff policy — a loss for the administration, but a separation-of-powers ruling that will be read by scholars and students for decades to come.
Then there is the executive-power blockbuster: Trump v. Slaughter, teed up to overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935). For ninety years, that New Deal-era precedent has forced Republican presidents to keep Democrat holdovers operating their executive agencies. If Humphrey’s Executor goes into the trash bin of history, the deep state’s statutory immunity largely goes with it.
The Court has already handed down Louisiana v. Callais and Allen v. Caster (Alabama)–two decisions that held federal judges cannot use the Voting Rights Act to force red states to draw racial majority-minority districts where the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments prohibit using race in governmental decisions. Those rulings reshaped the 2026 midterm map and served up a terrible blow to the Democrats.
On the cultural front, Chiles v. Salazar struck down Colorado’s one-way talk-therapy regime as a First Amendment violation, i.e., Colorado law said talk therapists could help individuals transition to a new gender, but those same therapists could not discourage gender transitioning. And West Virginia v. B.P.J. is teed up to decide whether states can keep biological boys out of girls’ high school sports consistent with federal Title IX.
These groundbreaking, precedent-setting cases were sitting in front of the Justices when the AR-15 and magazine cert petitions were being considered.
Here is the part the cynics leave out: The Court granted cert in two important Second Amendment cases this term.
United States v. Hemani asks whether the federal government can disarm unlawful users of marijuana under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). Wolford v. Lopez asks whether Hawaii can set as a default law that every place generally open to the public (restaurants, gas stations, laundromats, etc.) is a government-mandated gun free zone unless a CCW holder can first procure express permission to carry from the owners. Both decisions will land by the end of June. Neither is an AR-15 case, but they are precedential rulings that will shape Second Amendment doctrine for years to come.
Remember the distinction I always draw: every case is important to the parties in it, but not every case is precedential. Hemani and Wolford are precedential. The Court took the Second Amendment seriously this term. It just couldn’t take every 2A case.
Next Term Is Likely the AR-15 Term
Justice Kavanaugh signaled in spring 2025 that the Court needed to take an AR-15 case in the next term or two. That phrasing was not accidental. He was looking down the chessboard. With the executive-power, immigration, redistricting, and tariff cases eating up this term, the AR-15 fight likely gets pushed into the October 2026-June 2027 term — exactly the term Kavanaugh had telegraphed.
I think the vehicle is already in the pipeline. The Seventh Circuit’s Barnett case out of Chicago and the Third Circuit’s Cheeseman/ANJRPC case out of Philadelphia both involve state-level “assault weapons” bans, and the Trump DOJ has already weighed in on both. One of those will likely be the cert vehicle.
So when someone asks whether the Supreme Court is afraid of the AR-15 question, my answer is no. The Justices ran out of room this term due to an insanely-significant docket.
The history of the future has yet to be written, but the chessboard tells me the AR-15 case is coming next term — and when it does, the Second Amendment is going to win hugely.
About Mark W Smith
Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith, host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on YouTube, is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar. His Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen and in U.S. v. Rahimi.
Video shows moments before the ATF raid on Bryan Malinowski’s home, where the agent covered the Malinowskis’ camera.
A federal judge has refused to let the government escape most of the wrongful-death lawsuit filed by Maria “Maer” Malinowski after ATF agents fatally shot her husband, Bryan Malinowski, during a predawn raid at their Little Rock, Arkansas, home.
The ruling is not a final judgment against the ATF or the United States, but it is a major procedural defeat for the government. The government asked the court to dismiss all nine Federal Tort Claims Act claims. Judge Lee P. Rudofsky said no to most of that request.
In his June 17 order in Malinowski v. USA et al., the judge allowed claims for wrongful death, assault and battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, manslaughter/negligent homicide under Arkansas’ crime-victim statute, battery, aggravated assault, and criminal mischief to move forward. The court dismissed only the FTCA false-imprisonment claim without prejudice and removed ATF itself as a named defendant because FTCA claims proceed against the United States, not the agency directly.
The government wanted this case stopped before discovery could dig deeper into the planning, timing, body-camera failures, and execution of the raid. Instead, most of Maer Malinowski’s claims survived.
A “Routine” Warrant That Ended In Death
The court described the warrant as “a fairly routine search warrant for a fairly routine (alleged) crime.” That alleged crime was dealing in firearms without a license and unlawful acquisition of firearms. That line alone should make every gun owner in America sit up straight.
Bryan Malinowski was not accused of murder, terrorism, armed robbery, or being part of a cartel hit squad. He was suspected of buying and selling firearms without the government’s preferred paperwork. ATF had a search warrant, not an arrest warrant. Yet agents chose a predawn tactical entry into the home of a man they knew had no criminal history and no history of violence.
AmmoLand has covered this case from the beginning, including the fatal raid, the missing body cameras, the congressional grilling of then-ATF Director Steven Dettelbach, the federal lawsuit, and the recent push by Arkansas lawmakers for a Trump DOJ investigation.
The Knock-And-Announce Problem
According to the order, ATF initiated the operation at about 6:02:58 a.m. Agents knocked and shouted for about 19 seconds, waited roughly nine more seconds, and then began forcing entry. The court treated 28 seconds as the relevant wait time before agents started breaking into the home.
The judge found that, taking Maer Malinowski’s allegations as true at this stage, she plausibly alleged that ATF violated the Fourth Amendment.
The court noted that ATF knew several important facts before the raid. Agents knew the home was large. It was dark and they knew the Malinowskis were likely asleep. Agents had covered the doorbell camera. The police siren was chirped for only about 1.5 seconds.
The judge wrote that “28 seconds was not enough time to reasonably suggest to law enforcement that the Malinowskis were refusing them entry.”
Guns In The Home Are Not An Excuse
The government argued that officer safety justified the fast forced entry because agents believed firearms were inside the home. Judge Rudofsky did not buy that as enough.
“The fact that Mr. Malinowski had guns doesn’t make it reasonable to assume he would use them violently,” the court wrote, citing Eighth Circuit precedent that the suspected presence of firearms alone does not justify otherwise unlawful entry.
The court also rejected the idea that evidence destruction justified the fast breach. Unlike drugs, the judge noted, firearms cannot be flushed down a toilet in a matter of seconds.
If the mere presence of firearms in a home were enough to justify rushed forced entry, then the Fourth Amendment would mean less for gun owners than for everyone else. The court did not go that far.
Initial Aggressor Question Cuts Against The Government
The government also argued that Arkansas law immunized the agents because Bryan fired first. The court said that the argument reads too much into the complaint.
The complaint alleges Bryan fired a shot that hit an agent in the boot sole. But the court said it is plausible that the agents were the initial aggressors if they “under the cover of darkness and without identifying themselves” unconstitutionally forced their way into the home with guns drawn.
The court put it bluntly: “Objectively speaking, an unidentified party that unlawfully barges into another’s house in the dark with guns drawn is the initial aggressor.”
What Happens Next
This case is now alive in a meaningful way. The government may try again later at summary judgment, especially after discovery. The judge made clear that Maer Malinowski will not be able to rely only on her complaint forever. But for now, the government failed to shut down most of the case.
That means discovery could become the next major battleground. The public may finally learn more about why ATF waited until Bryan was home, why agents covered the doorbell camera, why body cameras were not used, why less aggressive options were rejected, and why a suspected paperwork/licensing case was handled like a violent felony raid.
For gun owners, the lesson is chilling but simple: when federal agents treat ordinary firearm activity as a reason for military-style tactics, innocent people can die. This lawsuit is one of the few remaining paths to force answers.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
The Supreme Court’s Wolford v. Lopez ruling struck down Hawaii’s “vampire rule,” reaffirming that the right to carry cannot be turned into a government permission slip. IMG Duncan Johnson
The predictable political reaction to any expansion or defense of constitutional liberty is always the same: when a foundational right becomes too inconvenient for the state to micromanage, bureaucrats and activist jurists will declare the right itself a “failed experiment.”
We are seeing this play out in real time following a historic week at the United States Supreme Court. In the wake of a unanimous ruling protecting firearm possession for citizens like Ali Hemani, the High Court delivered a definitive 6–3 victory for gun owners in Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046, slip op. at 1 (U.S. June 25, 2026).
In an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court struck down Hawaii’s restrictive “vampire rule”—so named because, like the vampire myth, a person is barred unless expressly invited in.
The law flipped traditional property rights on their head by forcing concealed-carry permit holders to obtain express, advance permission before stepping onto “any” private property open to the public, from grocery stores to gas stations.
Yet rather than respecting the clear boundary set by the Constitution, the progressive wing of the Court has escalated its rhetoric. In a stinging dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson openly declared that the Court’s objective is merely “protecting guns, not consistently preserving any principle of law.” Joining forces with Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, she reiterated her demand to “retire the failed ‘Bruen’ experiment,” complaining that anchoring modern laws in the nation’s historical traditions is an unworkable burden for the lower courts. That is a weak argument when our most basic human rights are at stake. Demanding that the state justify its restrictions using our actual constitutional tradition is never “too much to ask” of the legal system.
This frantic critique completely misses the purpose of constitutional jurisprudence. The Bruen standard is not a laboratory experiment; it is an ideological anchor. When Justice Jackson advocates for returning to a system where the state weighs its own “ends and means,” she asks to return to a failed and dangerous status quo where judges can simply balance away an individual’s rights whenever the government provides a compelling excuse or claims the burden is too great.
Structural, timeless truths have a way of outlasting bad policy. Wolford succeeds precisely because it aligns our constitutional framework with a much higher reality: the preservation of life is a natural, foundational right. What God has granted, man cannot erode by turning everyday public spaces into legal traps.
Driving a Stake Through the “Vampire Rules”
Hawaii’s law was dubbed a “vampire rule” because much like the folklore of old, it assumed a law-abiding citizen carrying a tool for self-defense had no right to enter a business without an explicit invitation. Had the Supreme Court allowed this workaround to stand, it would have effectively nullified the Second Amendment in daily life. A citizen could carry a firearm on a public sidewalk, but the moment they stepped into a shop to buy a bottle of water or stopped to pump gas, they would become a criminal.
As Justice Alito rightly observed, such restrictions “hobble what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives.”
Justice Jackson’s dissent attempted to reframe the argument, claiming Wolford was a matter of “property rights” rather than gun rights. But traditional property law has always dictated that businesses open to the public are presumptively accessible unless the owner affirmatively posts a sign or asks an individual to leave. Hawaii attempted to use the heavy hand of the state to enforce an anti-gun default.
The Wolford decision reinforces a clear continuum established by the Court’s most vital precedents:
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008): Decisively affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm centered on the lawful purpose of self-defense.
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010): Incorporated that individual right against the states, ensuring local governments cannot arbitrarily strip citizens of their tools for survival.
N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022): Solidified that the right to bear arms extends beyond the home and into the public square.
To argue that 21st-century problems cannot be solved with founding-era constitutional principles is to argue that the Bill of Rights itself is obsolete. The technology of speech and firearms may evolve, but the fundamental nature of human liberty does not.
Thought Throughout History: The Natural Law vs. Legislative Whim
Long before the Framers gathered in Philadelphia, the greatest legal and philosophical minds understood that self-defense is not a gift from a government body. It is an immutable component of human existence that no legislative body has the moral authority to “balance” away.
The Roman statesman Cicero captured this immortal truth in 52 B.C., writing:
“This, then, is a law, O judges, not written, but born with us; which we have not learnt, or received by tradition, or read, but which we have taken and sucked in from nature itself; a law which we were not taught, but to which we were made, that if our life be brought into danger by any treachery . . . every means of securing our safety is honorable.”
Centuries later, William Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the Laws of England shaped the American Founders and is still studied closely by first-year law students, described the “right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense” as an essential safeguard against both the “violence of oppression” and ordinary criminal threats.
When modern jurists complain that historical standards are too rigid, they are arguing for a “living” constitution that shifts with the political winds. But our Founders were explicitly clear that they were recognizing an inherent right, not creating an artificial one that a state legislature could tweak at will. Samuel Adams echoed this perfectly during the Boston convention of 1772:
“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can.”
The Divine Sanction of Self-Preservation
For those who view the world through a lens of faith, the legal arguments only mirror a deeper, spiritual reality that no modern legislative “ends and means” assessment can alter. Scripture does not command believers to forfeit their safety to the bureaucratic state or wait for a bureaucrat’s permission to protect their families. The protection of life, which is made in the image of God, is treated as a solemn duty.
In the Old Testament, the law acknowledged a clear distinction between cold-blooded violence and justifiable protection. Exodus 22:2 notes that if a thief is caught breaking in at night and is struck with a fatal blow, there is no bloodguilt for the defender. The home and the family are spheres requiring active stewardship and protection.
In the New Testament, even as Christ prepared for His ultimate sacrifice, He gave a practical instruction to His disciples regarding the realities of an unsafe world. In Luke 22:36, He told them:
“But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
The sword was the premier tool of personal defense in the ancient world. Christ’s instruction acknowledged that while believers rely on divine providence, they are also expected to use wisdom and practical means to preserve their safety in a broken world.
The True Measure of Liberty
Justice Jackson’s assertion that the Court is merely “protecting guns” reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the conservative majority’s jurisprudence. The Court is not protecting a piece of metal; it is protecting the “person” holding it. It is protecting the fundamental human right not to be left defenseless by a state government that seeks a monopoly on violence.
Wolford v. Lopez and Bruen did not expand gun rights; they restricted government overreach. They reminded the judicial and legislative classes that the Constitution is a document designed to limit the state, not the citizen.
When a law-abiding citizen walks into a store or goes about their daily errands, their right to carry the means to defend their life does not depend on a state-mandated presumption of guilt. It depends on a right woven into history, nature, and the fabric of creation. Mankind can pass laws, write ordinances, and express judicial frustration until the judicial ink runs dry, but man cannot erode what God has granted. Wolford simply ensures that the state cannot bypass the Constitution through clever legislative tricks, forcing the law of the land to respect what is written.
May the American people never forget that liberty is not granted by bureaucrats, nor preserved by timid compromise, but defended by citizens who understand that rights come from God, not government. True American freedom endures only so long as free people are willing to defend it, sacrifice for it, and stand unbowed against every force that would shrink it into permission instead of right.
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.
Todd Blanche has promised a new direction at DOJ, but Second Amendment advocates are watching whether that includes a change in NFA litigation. IMG Jim Grant
President Donald Trump has nominated Todd Blanche as the next U.S. Attorney General, following Pam Bondi’s dismissal.
Mr. Blanche is currently serving as acting Attorney General for the Trump Administration. Many gun rights activists hope he will be better on gun rights than Bondi, who was seen as a disappointment due to her perceived lack of support for expanding gun rights and her support for certain gun control measures, such as defending the National Firearms Act (NFA) regulations on suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs).
Mr. Blanche, originally from suburban Denver, graduated from American University and Brooklyn Law School while working as a paralegal. He clerked for federal judges, served for over 15 years with the Department of Justice, and was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York, where he co-led the violent crimes unit. Blanche left the DOJ in 2014 to join the law firms WilmerHale and Cadwalader. He later joined Wickersham & Taft as a partner in the white-collar defense practice. He would go on to represent Donald Trump in multiple criminal cases (e.g., hush money, classified documents, and election-related charges).
Will Blanche Walk The Walk On The Second Amendment?
When Trump recaptured the White House, he appointed Blanche as Deputy Attorney General, then Acting Attorney General. He has worked closely with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Director Robert Cekada on improving the ATF’s stance on gun policy to stop targeting law-abiding gun owners. These efforts include backing a landmark package of 34 regulatory reforms at the DOJ/ATF, described as the most comprehensive in history. These reforms aim to align rules with Supreme Court precedents (Bruen, Heller), reduce burdens on FFLs and owners, eliminate ambiguity, and prevent inconsistent enforcement.
Mr. Blanche has family ties to the gun industry. His wife’s family has been in the gun industry for decades. His father-in-law founded Checkmate Industries in 1968. Checkmate Industries manufactures magazines and related products. He has been open about these connections, including the fact that his mother has a concealed carry permit.
“My mom, for the first time, just told me she has a concealed carry permit!” Blanche told Tom Gresham on Gun Talk Radio. “That’s okay, I love it!”
Mr. Blanche has pushed back against using isolated criminal acts to justify broader restrictions on law-abiding citizens. These restrictions included the Biden Administration’s zero-tolerance policy against federal firearms licensees (FFLs) that shuttered gun stores across the country. This shift shows a willingness to go after criminals instead of targeting Americans for practicing a fundamental right.
“They are no longer going after FFLs,” Blanche said. “There’s no longer a zero-tolerance policy where if you don’t cross a T or dot an I, we’re going to shut you down.”
Mr. Blanche is on record stating that his goal is to make changes structurally difficult to undo by future administrations. These changes would theoretically stop an anti-gun President from coming in and changing things back. Blanche believes the best way to do this is to expand gun rights as far as possible while he holds power.
“Going back to the Reagan administration, the gun industry takes two steps forward. And then a Democrat comes in and takes us eight steps back,” he said. “We’re not going to take two steps forward. We’re going to go forward a mile.”
Although Blanche “talks the talk” at events such as the National Rifle Association’s Annual Meeting (NRAAM), it remains to be seen if he “walks the walk.”
A good way to prove that he is a defender of the Second Amendment is to order the Department of Justice to stop defending the NFA against the multiple legal challenges. This one action would prove his pedigree on gun rights.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
What criteria must citizens seeking similar relief need to meet to prove themselves eligible for equal treatment? (img Duncan Johnson)
A June 15 letter to attorney Stephen Stamboulieh from the Department of Justice confirms DOJ is digging in against providing records responsive to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request concerning the restoration of firearm rights to individuals who have been identified as eligible.
“We previously provided you with an interim response on March 26, 2026. We have now completed the processing of an additional fourteen pages of material responsive to your request,” Senior Counsel Vanessa R. Brinkmann advises. “At this time, I have determined that all fourteen pages should be withheld in full pursuant to Exemption 6 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). Exemption 6 pertains to information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Please be advised that we have considered the foreseeable harm standard when reviewing records and applying FOIA exemption.”
DOJ is trying to close the door on a request submitted in April of last year that attempted to determine DOJ decision-making criteria when it identified 10 individuals, including actor/director Mel Gibson, for firearms restoration. Because it’s so easy to end up on the prohibited persons list (including the innocent pleading out to avoid great expense and threatened draconian punishment if they lose), it seemed in the interests of gun owners to know what criteria were used and who is likely to be eligible for consideration.
The FOIA request was an attempt to determine how those particular individuals were selected in order to clarify how other citizens could be included, by asking for:
All records “reviewed” by the Attorney General for each individual listed in the filing;
All records “that each individual submitted” to receive relief under 18 U.S.C. 925(c); and
All other records not “submitted” by the list of individuals but relied upon by the Attorney General in establishing that “each individual will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief to each individual would not be contrary to the public interest.”
Since the government did not respond to the request in the time required by law, a complaint was filed last Sept. 25 in the United States District Court in the District of Columbia asking the court to order DOJ to conduct a responsive search, produce non-exempt records and enjoin DOJ from continuing to withhold records.
“No response is required… Plaintiff is not entitled to compel the production of any record… This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction… Plaintiff is neither eligible for nor entitled to attorney’s fees [and] Plaintiff’s request is improper to the extent is it unduly burdensome,” US Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro and Assistant US Attorney John J. Pardo argued in the Department’s answer, filed Dec. 19.
Despite that court filing, Brinkmann’s March interim response indicated they had identified such records. Her latest reply now tells us they won’t provide them.
The thing is, the FOIA request never asked for anything that was not a matter of nonexempt record and that would be violative of privacy rights, and the intent behind the effort was simply to help determine what criteria citizens seeking similar relief would need to meet to prove themselves eligible for equal treatment.
While, per the Office of the Pardon Attorney, the proposed rule has been published in the Federal Register and the comment period is over, a final rule with procedures to petition for rights restoration and an online application form have yet to be issued. And while it’s true the proposed rule offers generic guidance on eligibility, the devil is in the details:
Under § 107.1(7) and (8) of the proposed rule, those convicted of certain serious offenses that are not the violent or sexual offenses discussed above, may be considered for relief 10 years after the completion of their sentences based on their individualized circumstances without triggering the presumptive disqualification set forth in this rule. For all other offenses, as specified in § 107.1(a)(9), the Department has selected a presumptively disqualifying time-period of 5 years based on a review of the research and a need to balance public safety with individual rights.
In terms of rendering a decision, things get amorphous.
“The Attorney General may consider the elements of the statute of conviction and conclude that those elements, standing alone, necessarily match the offenses listed in the proposed rule and thereby presumptively render relief to be not in the interest of public safety,” the proposed rule states. “The rule also would clarify that the Attorney General’s decision whether to grant relief will be based on all the relevant circumstances, rather than a blindered approach that looks only at the facts that led to the applicant’s federal firearm disability.”
That could make ensuring equivalent outcomes problematic. Noting “the Department estimates that approximately 1 million people will apply for relief [estimated at $20 per application] within the first year of the program” requiring “50 FTE [Full-Time Equivalent] personnel,” there will be much room for variations. The need to apply consistent criteria is not only a matter of basic fairness, but of law.
That’s why release of requested records, without disclosing exempt information, will help ensure that, and DOJ’s blanket refusal, by claiming doing so would be “a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” seems more a hollow deflection than anything else. After all, it was the administration that released their names to the public in what was clearly to its political advantage by appealing to the “gun voters” it relies on.
In terms of continuing with this complaint, attorney Stamboulieh is working with DOJ on the next steps. Further developments will be reported in this column.
About David Codrea:
David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.
