Late last night, it happened again. The Department of Justice—calling itself the “most pro–Second Amendment DOJ ever”—filed a massive 48-page brief defending the National Firearms Act in the high-stakes lawsuit Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF. And the lengths they went to in order to keep the NFA alive reveal exactly how the federal government plans to protect gun control during the Trump presidency, even as Congress moves to dismantle it.

This case may become the most important Second Amendment battle in nearly a century—and what the DOJ just filed makes that clearer than ever.

Filed moments after President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill on July 4, 2025, Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF challenges the NFA’s regulations on:

• Suppressors
• Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)
• Short-barreled shotguns (SBSs)
• “Any Other Weapons” (AOWs)

The plaintiffs argue that because the bill zeroed out the NFA’s taxes, the entire regulatory structure collapses. If Congress removed the tax, they argue, the federal government no longer has the constitutional authority to enforce registration, approvals, and criminal penalties.

The lawsuit is a facial challenge—meaning the plaintiffs claim the NFA is unconstitutional in every circumstance for everyone.

At the start of the year, gun owners were promised big wins—national reciprocity, constitutional carry expansion, NFA repeal, and a rollback of federal gun regulations. Instead, Congress delivered minimal reforms, and the DOJ under Pam Bondi has now taken a hard turn in the opposite direction.

After Congress zeroed out the tax on certain NFA items—effectively eliminating the legal basis for the NFA registry—lawmakers sent a letter to the DOJ clarifying that their intent was to deregister these items. The DOJ ignored the letter.

This week, the DOJ filed its response in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, and it shocked the 2A community. In a 48-page memo, the DOJ aggressively defended the NFA using arguments typically heard from anti-gun administrations. They described NFA items as “weapons of war,” claimed short-barreled rifles and shotguns are primarily used by criminals, and even offered logic that could justify banning nearly any firearm.

To the frustration of many, the DOJ even cited Ninth Circuit precedent—one of the least gun-friendly courts in the country.

Despite the DOJ’s stance, Silencer Shop still has a strong case. Both sides are seeking summary judgment, and the outcome could reshape federal gun regulation.

For many gun owners, this filing represents the biggest betrayal yet, proving that the so-called “most pro-2A DOJ ever” is fully committed to preserving the NFA instead of dismantling it.

The Ninth Circuit just heard oral arguments in Sanchez v. Bonta, the major challenge to California’s statewide suppressor ban—and things did not go well for the state. What unfolded in the courtroom on November 18th was a revealing moment that highlighted just how thin California’s legal footing is when defending its prohibition on suppressors.

During the hearing, the attorney representing the state appeared unprepared, uncertain, and unable to articulate a consistent constitutional defense. His core claim was that suppressors are not “weapons” and therefore fall outside the Second Amendment’s plain text, meaning they can be banned outright without historical analogs.

But the real bombshell came when the state’s attorney openly admitted:

• Suppressors are rarely used in crime
• Magazines are “widely owned and rarely used in crime”
• California still banned them anyway

This admission unintentionally reinforced the argument that the state has adopted a pattern of banning commonly owned firearm accessories simply because it prefers to—not because history or facts support the restrictions.

At one point, the state began leaning into a prohibited “interest balancing” approach, essentially saying:

Even if suppressors aren’t used criminally, the state’s desire for safety outweighs any Second Amendment concerns.

This directly contradicts Bruen, which bars courts from weighing government interests against constitutional rights.

In contrast, the attorney for Mr. Sanchez delivered a clear, fact-driven argument grounded in:

• Bruen’s text, history, and tradition test
• The Ninth Circuit’s own precedent in BNL Productions
• The “integrated whole” concept from Duncan, noting that suppressors are part of the operation of a suppressed firearm

His position was simple and strong:

Banning suppressors meaningfully restricts lawful firearm use, and no historical tradition supports California’s ban.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t the strongest three-judge panel gun-rights supporters could have hoped for in the Ninth Circuit. Based on historical patterns, the likely outcome is a 2–1 ruling against Sanchez, though a surprise win isn’t impossible.

Regardless of the panel’s decision, this case is almost guaranteed to be appealed—and it could become a strong candidate for Supreme Court review. With clear conflicts between California’s arguments and the Bruen standard, this case raises foundational questions about states banning an entire class of firearm accessories widely owned nationwide.

Major breaking news rocked the Second Amendment world as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Sanchez v. Bonta, a pivotal case challenging California’s statewide ban on suppressors and silencers. Despite the Ninth Circuit’s long history of hostility toward gun rights, two of the three judges on the panel appeared notably sympathetic to the arguments made by the attorneys representing Gary Sanchez, raising real hope for a potential 2–1 pro-2A ruling.

The State of California argued that suppressors are “dangerous” accessories that make it harder for potential victims and law enforcement to detect gunfire or locate a shooter. Their claim hinges on the idea that suppressors have little self-defense utility and are primarily tools that increase criminal capability — despite little to no evidence of suppressors being used in crime nationwide.

Sanchez’s legal team countered with a powerful constitutional argument grounded in Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi. Their case centers on several key points:

• Suppressors are arms, or at minimum, directly regulate “arms-bearing conduct,” which falls under the Second Amendment’s protection.
• Millions of suppressors are lawfully owned across the United States, and they are overwhelmingly used for safe, lawful purposes.
• The devices provide critical hearing protection, improve safe firearm handling, enhance self-defense by preventing disorientation during defensive gunfire, and support safer training — something the Supreme Court has expressly recognized as part of the Second Amendment.
• Even under the Ninth Circuit’s own flawed precedent (Duncan v. Bonta), the suppressor ban cannot stand because it prohibits an entire class of commonly owned, constitutionally protected firearms accessories.

California, under questioning from the judges, struggled to provide real-world examples of criminals using suppressors, effectively conceding the point.

A decision could split 2–1 either way, but the tone of the questioning strongly suggests a possible victory for the Second Amendment — at least at the panel level. Whether the Ninth Circuit attempts to rehear the case en banc remains an open question.

For now, gun owners nationwide are watching closely. A win here could open the door for future challenges to suppressor bans across the country.

Two of the nation’s largest police organizations—the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)—issued a joint letter urging Congress to reject H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, arguing it threatens officer safety, increases legal exposure, and undermines state gun laws.

The unions claim the bill would prevent officers from detaining or arresting individuals solely for firearm possession and would expose officers to lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by restricting qualified immunity in gun-related encounters. They also warn that the legislation would require officers to make real-time judgments about 50 different state carry laws, including permitless carry states with no physical permit to verify.

Second Amendment advocates strongly dispute these arguments, noting that mere firearm possession is not a crime and cannot legally justify detentions, searches, or disarmament under the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Critics argue the unions are opposing H.R. 38 not for safety reasons, but because it strengthens civil rights protections and increases accountability when officers overstep constitutional limits.

Supporters of the bill say H.R. 38 simply affirms that lawful gun owners retain their rights when traveling across state lines and prevents states from treating out-of-state carriers as second-class citizens.

The debate highlights a growing national divide between police leadership and gun-rights advocates as Congress weighs whether to advance the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

In the post-Heller and post-Bruen era, the Supreme Court has made the Second Amendment’s meaning unmistakably clear: the right to keep and bear arms cannot be treated as a second-class right. Yet in many blue-state jurisdictions, lower courts are finding new ways to limit gun rights despite that guidance.

Today, two major tactics are shaping this resistance.

1. The “Facial Challenge” Game

Some courts are misusing the Salerno rule, which requires a law to be unconstitutional in all applications for a facial challenge to succeed. Instead of evaluating the actual statute, judges are inventing hypothetical, narrower versions of gun laws to save them.

Example: Fairfax County, VA

• The county banned guns in all 420 parks.
• Only four parks have preschools.
• The Fourth Circuit used those four parks to uphold a county-wide ban—imagining a version of the law the legislature never wrote.

This contradicts Heller, where the Supreme Court struck down D.C.’s handgun ban even while acknowledging other permissible restrictions. Courts must evaluate the law as written, not rewrite it to uphold it.

2. Mislabeling Legislative Facts as Adjudicative Facts

This tactic forces gun owners into long, expensive litigation.

• Legislative facts determine constitutionality (history, tradition).
• Adjudicative facts deal with case-specific details (witnesses, experts, trials).

Supreme Court Second Amendment cases—Heller, McDonald, Bruen, Caetano, Rahimi—never required trials or expert testimony. They relied solely on legislative facts. But many lower courts now demand full evidentiary records, delaying decisions for years and leaving unconstitutional laws in place.

These tactics—rewriting laws and dragging cases out—create obstacles designed to weaken the Second Amendment without openly defying the Supreme Court. Following Bruen means:

• Courts must evaluate statutes as written
• Constitutional questions must rely on legislative facts, not trial-style litigation

Only then can the Second Amendment receive the full protection the Supreme Court intended.

We’ve got massive Supreme Court news—and for gun owners nationwide, this could be the moment we’ve been waiting for. After years of watching the Second Amendment treated like a “second-class right,” the Court is now preparing to review three major 2A cases on the same day. These cases target two of the biggest issues in the firearms debate: magazine bans and semi-automatic rifle bans.

For years, states have created a confusing and restrictive patchwork of gun laws. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and Bruen established clear protections, but lower courts and anti-2A states have continued to ignore them. Now the Supreme Court has an opportunity to reset the playing field.

1. Duncan v. Bonta (California Magazine Ban)

This landmark case challenges California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
It asks:

• Are standard-capacity magazines protected by the Second Amendment?
• Did California violate the Takings Clause by banning them without compensation?

Duncan is one of the strongest, most fully-developed magazine-ban cases ever brought to the Court.

2. Gators Custom Guns v. Washington (Washington Magazine Ban)

This Washington State Supreme Court case asks whether magazines holding over 10 rounds are “arms” protected under the Second Amendment’s plain text.
If accepted, this case could help end magazine bans nationwide.

3. Viramontes v. Cook County (Illinois Semi-Auto Ban)

This case directly challenges bans on AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles.
The key question:
Do the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess commonly owned semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15?

Justice Kavanaugh himself previously pointed to this case as one the Court should review—making it a strong contender for acceptance.

The Court will conference all three cases and decide whether to:

• Grant review
• Deny review
• GVR (grant, vacate, and remand)
• Push to a later conference

We typically learn the results the following Monday, but decisions can come early.

The Supreme Court could answer every major question about rifle bans and magazine bans with just one of these cases. If they take even one, it could reshape firearms law nationwide.

Gun owners now have their best chance in years for a major 2A victory. All eyes are on December 5.

In a major Second Amendment development, members of Congress have sent a formal letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging the Department of Justice to adopt a groundbreaking interpretation of the National Firearms Act (NFA)—one that could unravel the law’s registration and transfer requirements for millions of firearms.

The push comes after President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed on July 4th, which included Section 70436—a provision reducing the NFA’s $200 excise tax on items like SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors to zero.

For nearly a century, the NFA’s legal foundation has hinged on the idea that registration is permissible only because it enforces a tax. That principle comes from the Supreme Court’s 1937 decision in Sonzinsky v. United States, which upheld registration because it was tied to collecting revenue.

But with the tax now eliminated, lawmakers argue that the NFA’s entire registration framework for these items no longer has constitutional footing.

In their letter, members of Congress state plainly that:

“The taxation and registration provisions of the National Firearms Act are inseparably linked… eliminating the tax eliminates the registration and transfer requirements.”

They further urge the DOJ to adopt this interpretation in all ongoing litigation, signaling that the government should stop defending NFA registration rules in court.

Congress’s request places the Department of Justice at a crossroads. DOJ leadership can either:

• Issue policy guidance acknowledging that NFA registration no longer applies to zero-tax items, or
• Fight the interpretation in court, defending a registration system that no longer collects revenue.

The outcome will influence multiple high-profile 2A lawsuits—including the GOA’s challenge to the NFA’s registration scheme—and could reshape federal firearms policy for decades.

If the DOJ agrees with Congress, Americans could witness the first major rollback of NFA restrictions in nearly 90 years, effectively removing the registration and transfer process for millions of currently regulated firearms.

If the DOJ rejects Congress’s interpretation, the nation is likely headed into one of the most consequential legal battles in Second Amendment history.

Either way, the stakes for gun owners—and for the future of the NFA—have never been higher.

In a bold move that’s sending shockwaves through the Second Amendment community, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has publicly called out President Donald Trump for failing to live up to his promise to protect gun rights. Despite Trump’s February executive order titled “Protecting Second Amendment Rights,” the Department of Justice under his administration continues to defend federal gun control statutes — and the FPC says enough is enough.

In a statement released from Washington, D.C., the FPC accused the Trump DOJ of “relentlessly defending the federal government’s unconstitutional gun control regime.” The group cited multiple cases where the Justice Department sided against gun owners rather than supporting efforts to dismantle federal restrictions.

According to the FPC, the Trump administration’s Solicitor General urged the Supreme Court to deny review of a challenge to the National Firearms Act (NFA) — the 1934 law that regulates and taxes items like short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and suppressors. The DOJ claimed these restrictions align with “historical tradition,” effectively endorsing federal overreach the Second Amendment was meant to prevent.

The FPC highlighted several ongoing court battles where the Trump DOJ’s actions appear to conflict with pro-2A promises:

• United States v. Himmani: A case the DOJ supported that could strengthen federal power over individual gun rights.
• United States v. George Peterson: A Fifth Circuit appeal challenging the NFA’s suppressor registration and taxation scheme — opposed by the DOJ.
• Jensen v. ATF: An FPC-backed case directly challenging provisions of the NFA itself.

The FPC argues that these are deliberate choices, not bureaucratic leftovers. The organization is demanding that the President order the DOJ to stop defending these laws and instead use executive power to restore Second Amendment protections.

If the Department of Justice stopped defending the NFA and similar laws, the effects would be immediate and far-reaching.
Victories in federal court could:

• Remove restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles
• Reopen the door for interstate firearm transfers
• Set the stage for striking down magazine capacity limits and AR-15 bans

If the Department of Justice stopped defending the NFA and similar laws, the effects would be immediate and far-reaching.
Victories in federal court could:

• Remove restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles
• Reopen the door for interstate firearm transfers
• Set the stage for striking down magazine capacity limits and AR-15 bans

In short, ending DOJ defense of federal gun control could reset decades of unconstitutional precedent and restore the Second Amendment to its original strength.

FPC’s message to Trump is clear: Stop being passive — start being proactive.

Gun owners who supported Trump for his pro-2A stance are now watching closely to see whether he’ll respond. The DOJ has already delayed its next filing in the Gun Owners of America’s NFA lawsuit until December 15, meaning all eyes will be on the administration’s next move.

As Guns & Gadgets host Jared reminds viewers:

“Actions speak louder than words. If the federal government backs down from defending unconstitutional laws, we could see major wins in court — and the restoration of the Second Amendment.”

Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke—a frequent defender of the Second Amendment and a top name on Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist—gave a rare, candid interview at the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention. He explained why judges need real firearm experience if they’re going to rule on gun cases.

VanDyke argued that many federal judges have never touched a gun, yet regularly decide major Second Amendment issues. He compared it to ruling on free speech without ever speaking publicly. Understanding firearms, he says, keeps the Second Amendment from becoming abstract—something the Founders, who were deeply familiar with guns, never intended.

Growing up in Montana, VanDyke learned hunting and shooting early. Later, a gift of a Sig 556 pushed him into the world of competitive shooting, including:

• IDPA
• USPSA
• Tactical Games

He believes competitive shooting makes people far more prepared for self-defense than static range training.

VanDyke said judges risk becoming insulated. He stays grounded through church and the shooting community, where people treat him like a regular person—not “Your Honor.”

He highlighted his go-to SIG P320, his collection of AR-style rifles, and the Desert Eagle he once used to take an elk at 180 yards. He also joked about the AK-47 hanging in his chambers—technically owned by the government and nicknamed “the people’s AK.”

VanDyke’s interview gives a rare look at a federal judge who understands firearms both legally and practically. With major Second Amendment cases still rising through the courts, his voice is becoming more important than ever.