In a surprising turn of events, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has backed down after heavy backlash from the Second Amendment (2A) community over the controversial Reese v. ATF case.

This case challenges the federal handgun ban on young adults between the ages of 18 and 20, and it recently sparked outrage when the court required 2A organizations like the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Second Amendment Foundation (2AF) to hand over their member lists to the federal government.

Initially, the DOJ filed a proposed judgment asking the court to limit relief only to specific plaintiffs and verified members of the involved organizations. The DOJ argued that they needed to identify members in order to comply with the judgment, citing Rule 65D of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This effectively meant that the government wanted names of private citizens who were members of these 2A groups—a move that gun rights advocates called dangerous and unacceptable. Many saw it as an effort to build a list of gun owners and supporters, raising serious privacy and constitutional concerns.

The 2A community erupted in protest, criticizing both the DOJ and the court for what many saw as a direct threat to civil liberties.

After days of intense pushback, the FPC announced breaking news: the DOJ had caved. All parties—including the DOJ—filed a joint motion asking the court to change the judgment’s language.

Under the proposed change, the court would replace the word “shall provide” with “may provide”, meaning 2A organizations would no longer be required to hand over their member lists, though they could voluntarily do so if they chose.

This simple change from “shall” to “may” marks a major victory for gun rights advocates concerned about government overreach and potential misuse of member data.

This case exposes a broader issue in 2A litigation—limited-scope judgments that only apply to certain members or plaintiffs. Critics argue that if a law is found unconstitutional, it should apply to all citizens, not just a select few.

Moreover, the DOJ’s reversal shows the power of public pressure. Without the vocal resistance from gun owners and advocacy groups, the department likely wouldn’t have altered its stance.

The joint motion requests that the court act before October 14, 2025, giving just a few days for a decision. If approved, it would prevent mandatory disclosure of member information and mark a notable win for privacy and Second Amendment rights.

As Copper Jacket TV’s Will puts it, the community’s unified voice made a difference—proving once again that public awareness and pushback can influence how the government treats gun owners’ rights.