Todd Blanche’s Efforts to Restore Federal Firearm Rights
Attorney General Todd Blanche took decisive action on August 17, 2026, finalizing a long-awaited federal regulation that reopens a pathway for eligible Americans to regain their federal firearm rights. As one of his first major moves after Senate confirmation, Blanche restored a process under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) that had been effectively unavailable for more than three decades. The rule implements a structured, individualized review system designed to protect the Second Amendment while keeping firearms out of the hands of those who pose genuine public-safety risks.
The Long Dormancy of Section 925(c)
Congress created a statutory mechanism decades ago allowing the Attorney General to grant relief from federal firearms disabilities on a case-by-case basis. For over thirty years, however, appropriations riders blocked the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from investigating or acting on applications. The result was a near-total shutdown of the process. Millions of Americans who had completed their sentences, paid their debts to society, and demonstrated rehabilitated lives remained permanently barred from exercising a fundamental constitutional right. Federal law treated the Second Amendment as effectively extinguished for these individuals, with no practical avenue for restoration short of a presidential pardon.
A New, Rigorous Restoration Process
Blanche’s final rule revives the individualized review Congress authorized and shifts primary responsibility to the Attorney General. Restoration is neither automatic nor guaranteed. Applicants must demonstrate that the circumstances of their original prohibition, combined with their subsequent record, reputation, and conduct, show they are not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest.
The Department of Justice will maintain strong presumptions against relief for those whose crimes or status present elevated risks. Absent extraordinary circumstances, violent felons, registered sex offenders, illegal aliens, and others who present an ongoing danger remain presumptively ineligible. Any relief granted removes only federal disabilities and does not override separate state-law restrictions.
The Justice Department has established a dedicated Federal Firearm Rights Restoration Program website at justice.gov/ffrr. Applications will open in stages after the rule’s publication in the Federal Register, beginning with limited cohorts and expanding over subsequent months. Applicants will submit supporting documentation, electronic fingerprints, character references, and, in later stages, a modest application fee.
Balancing Rights and Public Safety
Blanche emphasized the constitutional foundation of the initiative. “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety,” he stated. “This rule establishes a rigorous, commonsense process that protects the public while giving deserving Americans a real path to restoration.”
U.S. Pardon Attorney Edward Martin highlighted the scale of the effort, noting work under Blanche’s direction to create a pathway for the estimated tens of millions of Americans affected by federal firearms disabilities. The approach prioritizes both constitutional fidelity and careful screening, rejecting a one-size-fits-all lifetime ban in favor of evidence-based evaluation.
Broader Context of Second Amendment Restoration
This rule forms part of a broader Trump administration effort to reverse years of regulatory overreach and restore respect for the right to keep and bear arms. Earlier actions under Blanche’s leadership as Acting Attorney General included significant ATF regulatory reforms aimed at reducing unnecessary burdens on lawful gun owners and the firearms industry. The restoration process directly addresses a longstanding grievance of Second Amendment advocates: the permanent stripping of rights from non-violent individuals who have demonstrated they no longer present a threat.
Gun-rights organizations have welcomed the development as a meaningful step forward, while noting that continued advocacy will be necessary to refine the process and ensure fair, accessible implementation. Critics from gun-control groups have stressed the need for robust safeguards, a concern the rule’s strict presumptions and individualized scrutiny aim to address.
Looking Ahead
The final rule takes effect thirty days after Federal Register publication. Eligible individuals can begin preparing documentation and monitoring the justice.gov/ffrr site for application windows. For many law-abiding Americans who have rebuilt their lives after past mistakes, this represents the first realistic opportunity in a generation to reclaim a core constitutional right. Blanche’s action affirms that the Second Amendment deserves the same careful, rights-respecting treatment afforded other fundamental liberties—neither casually discarded nor recklessly restored.
Indiana Suppressor Purchases Today With Form 4473 Only
Indiana now allows same-day suppressor purchases via standard Form 4473 and NICS background checks for covered transactions following a federal court ruling.
As of mid-August 2026, the injunction in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF (Northern District of Texas) is in effect after the DOJ did not seek a stay. The ruling holds that once Congress set the NFA transfer/making tax to $0 for suppressors (and certain other items) effective January 1, 2026, the accompanying registration and Form 4 requirements lack constitutional foundation under the taxing power for the covered parties and customers.
Indiana is one of the 27 “free states” with no state-level NFA registration mandate layered on top of federal law. Suppressors remain fully legal for ownership, possession, and hunting under Indiana law, with no additional state permits or paperwork required beyond federal rules.
Important Limitations
This is not a blanket nationwide deregulation of the NFA. Coverage is party- and transaction-specific—primarily purchases originating from Silencer Shop (or inventory from Silencer Shop routed through Powered By Silencer Shop dealers) for customers in free states. Independent FFLs without that connection generally continue requiring traditional Form 4 processing. SBRs, SBSs, machine guns, and destructive devices are treated differently. The situation remains subject to potential appeals, further litigation, or clarification. Always verify current status directly with the dealer and consider consulting a qualified attorney. This is not legal advice.
How Purchases Work in Covered Cases
Buyers select a suppressor (often online through Silencer Shop or at a participating dealer), complete a standard ATF Form 4473, pass a NICS check, and take possession the same day in many cases—no fingerprints, photos, Form 4 submission, tax stamp (already $0), or ATF wait for covered items.
As of August 16, 2026, same-day suppressor transfers via Form 4473 + NICS (no Form 4) apply only to covered transactions under the Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF injunction (in effect since August 13 after the stay expired).
Indiana is one of the 27 free states with no independent state-level NFA registration requirement. Coverage is limited primarily to suppressors (and certain AOWs) originating from Silencer Shop or stocked by Powered By Silencer Shop dealers. Independent FFLs without that connection, or those choosing caution due to lack of formal ATF guidance on inventory/recordkeeping, generally continue using the traditional Form 4 process.
Adoption is uneven. Silencer Shop has noted that dealers can opt into 4473 transfers for covered inventory, and they are working on better ways to identify participating dealers. Many shops are still evaluating compliance risks.
Known Indiana Dealers Associated with Silencer Shop / Powered By Network
This List Will Grow
These appear in Silencer Shop dealer locator results or publicly partner for suppressor sales/transfers. Contact them directly to confirm whether they are currently performing same-day 4473 transfers on covered (Silencer Shop-origin) inventory:
• Armory 219 — Valparaiso (103-3 Morthland Dr) and Merrillville (4343 E Lincoln Hwy). Class 3/SOT dealer that stocks suppressors and appears in Silencer Shop listings.
• South County Guns — Schererville (2129-2133 / 2133 US Hwy 41). Listed in Silencer Shop dealer results; full-service Northwest Indiana retailer.
• Four Guns — Lafayette (3 N Earl Ave). Explicit Silencer Shop dealer locator listing with suppressor inventory.
• M & J Firearms — Fortville (24 South Main St). Longstanding Silencer Shop partner for suppressor purchases and transfers serving the Indianapolis-area market.
• Silencer Central — Licensed in Indiana (Westfield-area presence noted). Addresses the post-ruling process and supports in-person transfers where NICS clears (online/to-door still follows residual processes in some cases).
Silencer Shop reports dozens of Powered By dealers across Indiana, concentrated near Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, Evansville, South Bend, and Bloomington. Use their official dealer locator for the most current map and to select a transfer location when ordering.
Practical advice: Call ahead. Ask specifically whether they are transferring covered Silencer Shop inventory on a standard 4473 + NICS today, what proof of coverage (if any) they require, and current stock. Policies can change quickly while the industry and ATF sort implementation details. This is not a universal over-the-counter market yet.
This remains a fluid legal situation subject to potential appeal or further clarification. It is not legal advice—verify directly with the dealer and consider consulting qualified counsel for your specific circumstances.
Carrying Firearms into Post Offices: History, Federal Law, and the DOJ’s Reading of 18 U.S.C. § 930(d)(3)
The question of whether an otherwise law-abiding citizen may carry a firearm into a United States post office has long been treated as settled against the individual. Federal criminal law and Postal Service regulations appeared to create a near-absolute ban. That understanding has been upended by recent judicial decisions applying New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and, most decisively, by an August 12, 2026, Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion interpreting the key statutory exception. This article examines the historical record, the text and structure of the governing statute, the Postal Service regulation, and the Department of Justice’s current position, with particular focus on Section 930(d)(3) of Title 18 as it applies today.
Historical Background: No Founding-Era Ban
Post offices and the mail system are as old as the Republic. The Continental Congress established a postal system in 1775, and the Constitution expressly empowered Congress “To establish Post Offices and post Roads.” Early Congresses protected the mail and postal employees through severe criminal penalties for robbery and interference, including capital punishment in some cases. What they did not do was prohibit ordinary citizens from carrying arms into post offices.
For nearly two centuries after the Founding, no federal prohibition on firearms in post offices existed. Early post offices were frequently located in private homes, general stores, or other places of business provided by the postmaster. Even after the federal government began housing post offices in dedicated federal buildings in the early twentieth century, no weapons ban followed for decades. Air-mail pilots were required to carry pistols for a time, and postal clerks were armed in response to robberies in the early twentieth century. The first general federal property management regulations restricting firearms on federal property appeared only in the 1960s. A specific Postal Service regulation banning firearms, dangerous weapons, and explosives on postal property “except for official purposes” was adopted in 1972. The criminal statute now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 930 was enacted in 1988 as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act.
Courts applying the Bruen historical-tradition test have repeatedly noted this absence of early analogues. Judge Reed O’Connor of the Northern District of Texas, ruling in favor of the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation in 2025, observed that Congress and the Founders were aware of violence directed at the postal system yet addressed it through means other than disarming the public at post offices. The government conceded that the first specific ban on firearms on postal property dated only to 1972—nearly two hundred years after the Founding. Under Bruen, the lack of a relevantly similar historical tradition is fatal to a modern restriction that burdens the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
The Statutory Framework: 18 U.S.C. § 930
Section 930(a) makes it a federal misdemeanor for any person to “knowingly possess[] or cause[] to be present a firearm or other dangerous weapon in a Federal facility (other than a Federal court facility).” A “Federal facility” is defined as “a building or part thereof owned or leased by the Federal Government, where Federal employees are regularly present for the purpose of performing their official duties.” Post offices plainly fall within this definition. The Postal Service is an Executive Branch entity whose employees perform official duties in facilities the government owns or leases. Penalties for a simple violation are a fine, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both. A higher penalty applies if the firearm is possessed with intent that it be used in a crime.
Subsection (d) carves out three exceptions. The third is central:
(d) Subsection (a) shall not apply to—
…
(3) the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.
This language has existed since the statute’s enactment in 1988. For decades, the Department of Justice and lower courts tended to read the exception narrowly, often treating “incident to hunting or other lawful purposes” as requiring a purpose closely tied to the federal facility itself (for example, carrying a hunting rifle into a national park where hunting is permitted). Some courts applied the ejusdem generis canon to limit “other lawful purposes” to activities similar to hunting.
The Postal Service’s own regulation, 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l), is even broader on its face. It provides that “[n]otwithstanding the provisions of any other law, rule or regulation, no person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes.” Violations are punishable by a fine or imprisonment of not more than 30 days. This regulation reaches not only the interior of post offices but also surrounding postal property, including parking lots in many interpretations.
The 2026 OLC Opinion: Section 930(d)(3) and Self-Defense
On August 12, 2026, the Office of Legal Counsel issued a formal memorandum opinion to the Attorney General titled “Application of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) to Post Offices.” The opinion concludes that Section 930(d)(3) “permits the lawful carrying of constitutionally protected firearms in post offices that are generally open to the public.”
OLC’s reasoning proceeds in two steps. First, the carrying must itself be “lawful.” This incorporates both federal and state prohibitions. Persons prohibited under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)—felons, those adjudicated mentally defective or committed to mental institutions, illegal aliens, and those convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, among others—cannot claim the exception. State licensing requirements may also limit who qualifies, provided those requirements are themselves constitutional.
Second, the carrying must be “incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.” OLC rejects a narrow construction that would require the purpose of the carry to be specially related to the post office itself. Dictionary definitions of “incident” include occurring as a minor consequence or accompaniment. More importantly, the opinion treats self-defense as a paradigmatic lawful purpose. Drawing on Supreme Court precedent, including Heller, Bruen, and the more recent Wolford decision, OLC notes that the right to keep and bear arms is most frequently exercised for self-defense in the course of ordinary daily life. Post offices open to the public function as retail establishments where citizens conduct brief, routine transactions. Carrying a firearm for self-defense while entering such a place is therefore “incident to” a lawful purpose.
The opinion emphasizes that Congress itself chose the broad language “other lawful purposes” rather than a closed list. Hunting is listed as an example, but self-defense has long been paired with hunting as a core lawful purpose in both federal statutes and constitutional doctrine. Because an ordinary post office open to the public is not a “sensitive place” in the Heller/Bruen sense (courthouses, legislatures, and polling places present different historical traditions), the statutory exception applies.
Crucially, OLC concludes that the Executive Branch may not enforce Section 930(a) against law-abiding individuals carrying constitutionally protected firearms for self-defense in publicly accessible post offices. The Postal Service regulation, 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l), cannot override the statutory exception; as applied to such carry, the regulation is unlawful. The opinion is carefully limited: it addresses only post offices generally open to the public and does not reach closed or restricted postal facilities (for example, those on military bases or behind airport security) or other categories of federal buildings.
Practical Application Today
Under the current DOJ position, a person who is not federally prohibited from possessing firearms, who may lawfully carry under the law of the relevant state, and who carries a constitutionally protected firearm (ordinary handguns and long guns) for self-defense into an ordinary public post office does not violate 18 U.S.C. § 930(a). Federal prosecutors are directed not to charge such conduct. The USPS regulation may not be enforced against it.
This does not mean every post office is automatically open to carry. Facilities located inside military installations, secure airport areas, or other restricted zones remain subject to separate statutes and regulations. “Dangerous weapons” that are independently prohibited (undetectable firearms, for example) fall outside the protection. State and local law continues to apply outside the federal facility itself. Storage of firearms in vehicles on postal property presents separate questions that the OLC opinion does not fully resolve in every factual setting.
The opinion also sits alongside earlier judicial developments. In 2025, Judge O’Connor declared both Section 930(a) and the USPS regulation unconstitutional as applied to ordinary post offices and surrounding postal property with respect to members of the challenging organizations. The Department of Justice later abandoned its appeal, leaving the injunction intact for those parties. The OLC opinion provides a nationwide interpretive framework grounded in the statute itself, independent of any particular injunction.
Broader Implications and Remaining Questions
The OLC’s reading of “other lawful purposes” is textually grounded and constitutionally informed. By recognizing self-defense as a paradigmatic lawful purpose and refusing to engraft extra-textual limitations onto the exception, the opinion restores the statute’s actual language. It also avoids the serious constitutional questions that would arise from a blanket ban on carrying arms into buildings the public has used since the Founding for routine civic and commercial activity.
Questions remain. The opinion deliberately declines to address other federal facilities. Whether similar reasoning would extend to Social Security offices, certain IRS facilities open to the public, or other non-sensitive federal buildings open for ordinary business is left for future analysis. The interaction between the statutory exception and agency regulations that purport to create absolute bans will continue to be tested. And individuals must still comply with state carry laws and federal prohibited-person rules.
For the ordinary citizen visiting a neighborhood post office, however, the legal landscape has shifted decisively. Section 930(d)(3) is not a narrow hunting carve-out. Properly read, it permits the lawful carrying of constitutionally protected firearms for self-defense in post offices generally open to the public. The Department of Justice has now formally adopted that reading. The longstanding assumption that post offices are Second Amendment-free zones no longer holds under federal criminal law.
The 7-day stay of Judge Hendrix’s final judgment expired on August 12, 2026
The permanent injunction against enforcement of the challenged NFA registration/application provisions (as applied to the now-untaxed items—suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and certain AOWs) against the covered plaintiffs, their members/customers (current and future), and the plaintiff states is no longer stayed by the district court.
How Much Longer The DOJ Has To Fight It
Under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1)(B), because the United States (and its agencies/officers) is a party, the government generally has 60 days from entry of the judgment (August 5, 2026) to file a notice of appeal. That puts the ordinary deadline around early October 2026 (roughly October 4–5, depending on exact counting rules).
• An appeal does not automatically stay the injunction. The DOJ would need to move for a stay pending appeal (first typically in the district court under FRAP 8, or directly in the Fifth Circuit). As of reports from August 12, no such appellate stay or notice of appeal had been publicly confirmed in the immediate aftermath of the district court’s stay expiring.
• Even if a stay is granted pending appeal, the appeal process itself (briefing, possible oral argument, panel decision) typically takes many months. A further petition for rehearing or certiorari to the Supreme Court could extend the timeline substantially longer.
Means Available To The DOJ
1. Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — This is the primary and expected next step. The Fifth Circuit has a relatively favorable track record on Second Amendment and related gun cases in recent years. The government can simultaneously seek a stay of the injunction while the appeal is pending.
2. Seek a stay pending appeal — Without a stay, the injunction takes effect for the covered parties (it is party-specific, not a universal/nationwide injunction, consistent with recent Supreme Court limits on universal injunctions). Coverage is limited to the named plaintiffs, organizational members (current/future), customers of commercial plaintiffs, and the 15 plaintiff states (including Indiana, Texas, etc.).
3. Further review — If the Fifth Circuit affirms, the DOJ could petition for rehearing en banc or seek Supreme Court review via certiorari. Parallel NFA challenges (e.g., in Missouri) could also create opportunities for circuit splits that increase the chance of high-court involvement.
4. Policy/administrative options — Separate from litigation, the administration could choose not to appeal (as some lawmakers have urged), decline to defend the provisions, or pursue rulemaking/guidance to broaden non-enforcement. Congress could also act legislatively. Internal DOJ debate on whether to appeal has been reported.
Key limitations of the ruling: It rests on the loss of the taxing-power foundation after Congress zeroed the making/transfer taxes (via the 2025 legislation effective January 1, 2026). The court did not reach the Second Amendment claims (dismissed without prejudice as abandoned). Machine guns and destructive devices (which retained the $200 tax) are unaffected. State laws, Gun Control Act provisions, and other federal restrictions remain in place. The injunction is not nationwide.
As of the evening of August 12, 2026, the practical effect for covered parties depends on whether the DOJ has sought (and obtained) any further stay. Developments can move quickly; check official dockets (Northern District of Texas No. 6:25-cv-00056 and any Fifth Circuit appeal) or primary sources for the latest filings.
Our Recommendation Today
Based on the information published above we recommend waiting for further guidance and direction from the governing bodies and without activity listed in the “Means Available To The DOJ” section above until November 1, 2026. As always we are not attorneys and do not give legal advice. Continue watching the news and check back here often for updates as they become available.
If the DOJ Doesn’t Challenge the NFA Ruling by Midnight August 12
On August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas ruled that key National Firearms Act registration and application requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and any other weapons are unconstitutional. The court held that once Congress zeroed out the $200 making and transfer taxes on these items in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the regulatory scheme lost its sole constitutional foundation under the taxing power.
The judge issued a permanent injunction but stayed its effect for seven days to give the Department of Justice time to seek appellate relief. That stay expires around midnight August 12, 2026.
Immediate Effect of an Expired Stay
If the DOJ neither appeals nor obtains an extension of the stay, the injunction takes effect. ATF and DOJ would be barred from enforcing the challenged NFA provisions—registration, Form 1 and Form 4 applications, fingerprinting, and related requirements—against the named plaintiffs, their current and future members, and their customers. Covered commercial plaintiffs include Silencer Shop and other dealers involved in the consolidated cases.
In practical terms, those covered parties could begin transferring or making the affected items without the traditional NFA process. Some plaintiffs have already indicated plans to conduct transfers shortly after the stay lifts if no government action intervenes.
Limited Scope of the Injunction
The ruling is not a nationwide, universal injunction. Relief is limited to the specific parties and their members or customers. It does not automatically free every American or every FFL from NFA requirements. Private transfers and privately manufactured items generally remain outside the injunction’s reach. State-level restrictions on short-barreled firearms and suppressors also continue to apply where they exist.
Broader Practical and Political Consequences
Even with party-limited relief, enforcement becomes complicated. ATF cannot easily distinguish covered members or customers from everyone else without access to membership lists. This uncertainty could produce a de facto wider effect as dealers and owners adjust behavior. Parallel challenges continue in other districts, including Missouri and Kentucky, keeping pressure on the regulatory scheme.
Republican lawmakers have urged the DOJ to decline any appeal, apply the constitutional holding nationwide as operating policy, and begin rulemaking to rescind the challenged regulations permanently. Accepting the ruling would align the executive branch with Congress’s decision to eliminate the tax that underpinned the registration system.
What Comes Next?
If the stay simply expires without further court action, the immediate legal change is real but narrow. The larger question becomes whether the administration treats the district court’s reasoning as governing policy for all untaxed NFA items. That decision will determine whether this ruling remains a limited victory for specific plaintiffs or the first step toward ending the longstanding registration regime for suppressors and short-barreled firearms.
Brown v. ATF: Summary Judgment Hearing Challenges NFA Registration After Tax Elimination
On August 10, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held oral argument on cross-motions for summary judgment in Brown v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The hearing, before Chief District Judge Stephen R. Clark, addressed a major constitutional challenge to core registration and regulatory provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) as applied to suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns, and certain other items after Congress reduced the longstanding $200 making and transfer tax on those items to zero.
Arguments began at approximately 1:37 p.m. and concluded around 3:20 p.m. Counsel for the plaintiffs (John Ohlendorf) and the government (Jody Lowenstein) presented their positions, with limited time also allocated for amici. The court took the motions under submission and permitted the parties to submit supplemental authority by August 14, 2026. No ruling was issued from the bench.
Background of the Case and the NFA Landscape
Filed on August 1, 2025, Brown is a coordinated challenge brought by individual plaintiffs Chris Brown and Allen Mayville, Missouri retailer Prime Protection STL, LLC, and major gun-rights organizations including the National Rifle Association of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and American Suppressor Association. Defendants are the ATF, its director, the Department of Justice, and the Attorney General.
The NFA has long required registration, fingerprints, photographs, ATF approval (via Forms 1 and 4), and payment of a $200 tax for the making or transfer of certain “firearms,” including suppressors and short-barreled rifles and shotguns. Congress originally grounded the statute in its taxing power. The Supreme Court upheld key aspects of the regime on that basis in Sonzinsky v. United States (1937).
In 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (sometimes called the Big Beautiful Bill) reduced the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, SBRs, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” to $0, effective January 1, 2026, while leaving registration, approval, and related requirements in place. Machineguns and destructive devices retained the $200 tax. Plaintiffs argue that eliminating the tax removed the constitutional foundation for the remaining regulatory scheme as applied to the now-untaxed items.
Plaintiffs’ Core Arguments
Plaintiffs advance two primary claims. First, they contend the registration, application, possession, and related requirements exceed Congress’s enumerated powers. Because the NFA was enacted and upheld as a tax measure, and because the relevant taxes are now zero, the regulatory provisions are no longer necessary and proper to the collection of a tax. Plaintiffs reject government attempts to recharacterize the scheme under the Commerce Clause or other powers after the fact, arguing courts cannot retroactively supply a constitutional basis Congress never invoked.
Second, plaintiffs argue the registration regime violates the Second Amendment as applied to suppressors and short-barreled rifles. They maintain these items are “Arms” in common use for lawful purposes (self-defense, sporting use, and hearing protection). Under the framework of District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. City of Chicago, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the government must demonstrate a historical tradition of analogous regulation. Plaintiffs assert no such tradition exists for the NFA’s burdensome, discretionary registration system.
Individual plaintiffs describe concrete injuries, including lengthy delays in prior ATF approvals and the inability to transfer or acquire items without complying with the remaining NFA process. Organizational plaintiffs assert associational standing on behalf of members facing the same barriers.
Government Position and Procedural Posture
The government defends the scheme as remaining within Congress’s taxing authority, arguing that registration continues to support collection and enforcement of the special occupational taxes still paid by dealers, manufacturers, and importers of NFA items. It also invokes the Commerce Clause and maintains the regulations do not facially violate the Second Amendment. Standing challenges and arguments about the facial versus as-applied nature of the claims have featured in the briefing.
The case has been heavily briefed. After initial summary-judgment filings in late 2025 and early 2026, the court ordered supplemental briefing on novel issues. Oral argument was previously scheduled and continued before being reset for August 10. In the days leading up to the hearing, the court specifically directed the parties to address the relevance of a recent related decision from the Northern District of Texas.
The Texas Ruling and Its Shadow Over the Hearing
Just five days earlier, on August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix issued a significant decision in the consolidated cases Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF. Judge Hendrix held that the NFA’s regulatory provisions for the now-untaxed firearms exceed Congress’s enumerated powers. Because the statute was enacted under the taxing power and no longer generates revenue from those items, the registration and related requirements could not be sustained. The court permanently enjoined enforcement against the plaintiffs (and, where applicable, their members and customers) but stayed the judgment for seven days to allow the government to seek appellate relief. The court did not reach the Second Amendment claims.
That ruling was a first-of-its-kind district-court rejection of core NFA registration on tax-power grounds after the tax reduction. Judge Clark’s order requiring discussion of the Hendrix analysis made clear the Missouri court viewed the Texas decision as highly relevant to the arguments in Brown.
What Happened at the Hearing and What Comes Next
Public reporting and court docket entries confirm that arguments were presented on the tax-power theory, the Second Amendment claim, the impact of the Texas decision, standing, and the proper scope of any relief. Amici on both sides participated within the time limits set by the court. The motions remain under submission. Any decision will almost certainly be appealed to the Eighth Circuit regardless of the outcome.
A ruling for the plaintiffs on either the enumerated-powers or Second Amendment ground would mark another major blow to the NFA’s remaining framework for suppressors and short-barreled rifles, potentially expanding the practical effect of the Texas injunction. A government victory would preserve the status quo in the Eighth Circuit and set up a clearer circuit split or path for further appellate review. Supplemental filings are due by August 14, after which the court is expected to issue a written decision.
Brown v. ATF is one of several parallel challenges testing whether the NFA’s registration regime can survive the elimination of the tax that historically justified it. The August 10 hearing represents a critical stage in that litigation. The outcome will help determine the future scope of federal regulation of items long treated as NFA firearms but now subject to a zero-dollar tax.
The beneficiaries of Judge James Wesley Hendrix’s August 5, 2026 ruling (should it stand after any appeals) are limited and party-specific rather than nationwide. The permanent injunction bars the ATF and related federal officials from enforcing the challenged NFA registration, application (Form 1/Form 4), fingerprinting, photography, and related requirements for untaxed items—primarily suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs)—against the plaintiffs and certain connected parties.
Direct Plaintiffs and Their Connected Parties
The injunction covers the named plaintiffs in the consolidated cases (Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF), plus, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers (both current and future).
Key organizational and individual plaintiffs include:
• Silencer Shop Foundation
• Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation
• Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)
• Individual plaintiffs such as John Jensen, Jeremy Neusch, and David Lynn Smith
Members of the plaintiff organizations (current and future) and customers of the plaintiff businesses in covered transactions receive protection. For example, GOA members or customers purchasing from SilencerCo, Palmetto State Armory, or B&T USA in relevant transactions fall under the injunction.
AOW note: Relief for “any other weapons” is more limited. The Jensen-side plaintiffs generally lacked standing for AOWs, so protection in that category is narrower and primarily tied to the Silencer Shop Foundation side of the case.
The 15 Plaintiff States
Fifteen states joined as plaintiffs: Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
The injunction protects these state governments, their agencies, and their political subdivisions.
It does not automatically protect every resident of those states simply because they live there.
Residents of these states benefit if they are members of a covered organization, customers of a covered business in a relevant transaction, or otherwise fall under the “where applicable” language tying them to the plaintiffs.
Practical Beneficiaries
• Lawful owners and buyers who are members of the plaintiff groups or customers of the plaintiff companies can acquire, make, or transfer covered items (suppressors, SBRs, SBSs) without the federal NFA registration/approval process for those transactions.
• The plaintiff manufacturers and dealers gain the ability to sell or transfer these items to covered customers without the Form 4/Form 1 burdens and associated delays.
• State and local government entities in the 15 plaintiff states (and their subdivisions) receive relief from federal enforcement of the challenged provisions against them.
Who Is Not Automatically Covered
The ruling is not a nationwide injunction. It does not protect the general public, non-members of the plaintiff organizations, non-customers of the plaintiff businesses, or residents of non-plaintiff states unless they have a qualifying connection to a covered party. Machine guns remain fully subject to the NFA (they still carry a tax and other restrictions). State and local laws, ordinary background checks, and other federal restrictions continue to apply.
The court stayed the injunction for seven days to allow the government to seek appellate relief. If the ruling stands (or is affirmed on appeal), the beneficiaries remain those tied to the plaintiffs as described. Broader relief for others would require additional litigation, circuit-level decisions, Supreme Court action, or new legislation from Congress.
Federal Court Rules Key NFA Provisions Unconstitutional After Congress Eliminated the Tax
On August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas issued a landmark decision holding that core regulatory provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) are unconstitutional as applied to certain categories of firearms and devices. The ruling, in consolidated cases including Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF, concludes that once Congress eliminated the longstanding transfer and making taxes on suppressors (silencers), short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and certain “any other weapons” (AOWs), the remaining registration, approval, fingerprinting, and related requirements lost their constitutional foundation.
The decision marks a significant development in firearms law. For nearly ninety years, the NFA’s regulatory scheme rested primarily on Congress’s taxing power. When that revenue justification disappeared through legislation signed by President Trump in 2025, the court determined the residual controls could no longer stand under Article I’s enumerated powers.
Background of the National Firearms Act
Congress enacted the NFA in 1934 amid public concern over Prohibition-era gang violence and the use of certain weapons by organized crime. The statute imposed a $200 tax on the making and transfer of machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, and a residual category of “any other weapons.” It also created a registration system administered by what later became the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Applicants were required to submit fingerprints, photographs, detailed descriptions of the items, and await federal approval before taking possession or completing a transfer.
Courts long upheld these measures as a valid exercise of the taxing power. The registration and paperwork requirements were treated as necessary to collect and enforce the tax. The $200 levy, though modest by modern standards, generated revenue and provided the constitutional hook for the accompanying regulatory apparatus.
In 2025, Congress zeroed out the transfer and making taxes for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs as part of broader tax and spending legislation commonly referred to as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Machine guns remained subject to the original tax structure and other restrictions under the Gun Control Act. Beginning January 1, 2026, the affected items carried a $0 tax stamp while the registration, Form 1 and Form 4 application processes, fingerprinting, photography, and ATF approval mandates remained in place.
Gun-rights organizations argued that eliminating the tax eliminated the constitutional basis for the residual regulations. Multiple lawsuits followed, including actions supported by the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, the Firearms Policy Coalition, the National Rifle Association, state attorneys general, and individual plaintiffs and businesses.
The Court’s Reasoning
Judge Hendrix’s opinion centers on a straightforward constitutional principle: Congress may exercise only those powers enumerated in the Constitution. The NFA’s challenged provisions were enacted and sustained under the Taxing Clause. Once those provisions ceased to generate revenue from the untaxed categories, they could no longer be justified on that ground.
The court rejected the government’s attempt to recharacterize the remaining requirements under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. Judge Hendrix found no indication in the NFA’s text, structure, or legislative history that Congress had invoked any power other than the taxing power when crafting the registration and approval scheme for these items. Because the regulatory provisions were designed to support tax collection, and because no tax remained, the regulations exceeded Congress’s enumerated powers.
The Second Amendment claims raised by the plaintiffs were dismissed without prejudice as abandoned once the court resolved the case on enumerated-powers grounds. The decision therefore rests solely on Article I limits rather than on the individual right to keep and bear arms.
The permanent injunction bars the ATF and related federal officials from enforcing the challenged provisions—primarily 26 U.S.C. §§ 5812, 5822, and related registration and identification requirements—against the plaintiffs, their members, customers (current and future), and, in the state plaintiffs’ cases, their agencies and political subdivisions. The court stayed the effective date of the injunction for seven days to permit the government to seek appellate relief.
Scope and Limitations of the Ruling
The decision applies specifically to the now-untaxed categories: suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and (with some standing limitations for certain plaintiffs) AOWs. It does not disturb the NFA’s regulation of machine guns, which continue to carry a tax and are further restricted by the 1986 Hughes Amendment and other provisions of the Gun Control Act.
The injunction is party-specific rather than a nationwide vacatur. Relief extends to the named organizational plaintiffs, their members and customers, the participating states, and certain related entities. Other individuals and businesses outside the protected classes remain subject to the existing registration regime pending further litigation or legislative action. Multiple parallel challenges are pending in other courts, and the government is expected to appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
Practically, the ruling means that for covered plaintiffs and their customers, the Form 1 (making) and Form 4 (transfer) processes, fingerprint cards, passport-style photographs, and ATF approval wait times no longer apply to the affected items. Purchases and builds that previously required months of federal processing and a tax stamp can proceed without those federal requirements, subject still to state and local law and ordinary background checks under the Gun Control Act where applicable.
Reactions from Stakeholders
Gun-rights organizations greeted the decision as a major victory. The Second Amendment Foundation described it as confirmation that the residual registration scheme lacked constitutional grounding once the tax was removed. Gun Owners of America emphasized that Congress’s choice to eliminate the tax necessarily carried constitutional consequences for the regulatory structure built around it. State attorneys general from participating jurisdictions, including West Virginia, highlighted the ruling as relief from what they characterized as an invasive federal registration system no longer tethered to revenue collection.
Supporters of stricter firearms regulation criticized the outcome as undermining important public-safety measures. They noted that the NFA’s registration and approval process had provided an additional layer of scrutiny for items historically associated with criminal misuse and argued that zeroing the tax should not automatically dismantle the accompanying controls. Advocacy groups focused on gun restrictions expressed concern that the decision could lead to broader availability of suppressors and short-barreled firearms without the prior federal paperwork.
Industry observers pointed to the practical effects. Suppressor manufacturers and dealers have long cited the NFA process as a significant barrier to lawful commerce. Removal of the federal registration and tax-stamp requirements for covered parties is expected to simplify transactions and reduce administrative burdens, though interstate commerce and state-level restrictions continue to apply.
Broader Legal and Policy Context
The ruling arrives against a backdrop of sustained Second Amendment litigation following New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) and subsequent decisions examining historical analogues for modern firearms regulations. While this case was decided on enumerated-powers grounds rather than Second Amendment doctrine, it illustrates the continuing scrutiny applied to federal firearms statutes whose original justifications have shifted.
Congress retains the authority to amend the NFA or enact new legislation grounded in a different constitutional power. The court itself observed that efforts to restore a constitutional regulatory scheme must come from Congress, not from judicial reinterpretation of the existing statute. Whether lawmakers will attempt to reimpose registration under the Commerce Clause, or whether further legislative reforms will expand or contract the remaining NFA categories, remains a political question.
Appellate review is likely. The Fifth Circuit will confront the same core issue: whether regulatory provisions enacted and historically sustained solely under the taxing power can survive once the tax itself has been eliminated. A circuit decision could set the stage for Supreme Court consideration, particularly if other circuits reach conflicting results in parallel challenges.
Implications for Lawful Owners and the Industry
For individual firearm owners within the protected classes, the decision removes a longstanding federal hurdle to acquiring or building suppressors and short-barreled firearms. Suppressors, in particular, have seen growing mainstream acceptance for hearing protection, reduced recoil, and noise mitigation at ranges and in hunting contexts. Short-barreled configurations offer practical advantages in confined spaces or for certain defensive applications. The prior NFA process—often involving months of delay, fingerprinting, and a $200 tax—functioned as a de facto barrier even for fully lawful purchasers.
Dealers and manufacturers stand to benefit from reduced transaction friction. The elimination of the federal Form 4 and Form 1 bottleneck for covered customers should streamline sales and custom work. At the same time, businesses must carefully track the precise scope of the injunction and continue to comply with all remaining federal, state, and local requirements.
The ruling does not create a general right to possess or transfer these items free of all regulation. State laws, age restrictions, prohibited-person prohibitions, and ordinary National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) checks remain in force. Owners outside the injunction’s reach continue to face the pre-ruling NFA process until broader relief is obtained.
Looking Ahead
Judge Hendrix’s decision is a district-court ruling of immediate practical consequence for the parties before him and of substantial doctrinal importance for the future of the NFA. By tethering the statute’s regulatory power to its revenue-generating function and finding that function extinguished, the court has placed the burden on Congress to act if it wishes to maintain comparable controls under a different constitutional authority.
Further litigation will clarify the nationwide reach of similar challenges. Legislative responses—whether to reimpose taxes, reframe the statute under the Commerce Clause, or pursue additional reforms—will shape the next chapter. For now, the August 5 ruling stands as a clear judicial statement that when Congress eliminates the tax that justified a nearly century-old regulatory scheme, the residual registration and approval mandates cannot simply continue by inertia.
The National Firearms Act has long occupied a distinctive place in American firearms law: a tax-based system that evolved into a comprehensive registration regime. The Texas court’s decision forces a reckoning with the original constitutional premise of that system. Whether the NFA’s remaining provisions survive in their current form, or whether Congress and the courts continue to reshape this area of law, will be determined in the months and years ahead. For lawful owners, manufacturers, and advocates who have long argued that the tax-and-registration structure had outlived its constitutional justification once the tax itself disappeared, the ruling represents a concrete and consequential step.
Third Circuit Stays Landmark Ruling Against New Jersey’s Magazine Ban
The brief order pauses enforcement of the court’s mandate while the state prepares a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. As a result, New Jersey’s longstanding limits on magazines holding more than ten rounds—and its parallel ban on certain semiautomatic rifles—remain in effect for the time being.
The stay represents a procedural setback for gun-rights advocates who had celebrated the Third Circuit’s earlier ruling as a major victory for the Second Amendment. It does not reverse the merits decision. Instead, it preserves the status quo while higher-court review plays out.
Background of the Challenge
New Jersey’s magazine-capacity restrictions date back more than three decades. The state first limited large-capacity magazines in 1990. In 2018, lawmakers tightened the law further, defining “large capacity ammunition magazines” as those capable of holding more than ten rounds and generally prohibiting their possession. Parallel statutes ban a list of “assault firearms,” including AR-15-style rifles and firearms deemed substantially identical to listed models.
These laws faced repeated legal challenges. The primary cases consolidated before the Third Circuit involved the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs (ANJRPC), supported by the National Rifle Association, along with other plaintiffs including those backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition. Plaintiffs argued that both the magazine limits and the assault-firearm restrictions violate the Second Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).
The July 17 En Banc Decision
Sitting en banc, the full Third Circuit ruled 10-5 on July 17 that the challenged laws are unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Judge Arianna J. Freeman applied the Bruen framework, which requires the government to demonstrate that a modern firearm regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The court held that semiautomatic rifles and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds are “in common use for lawful purposes.” Millions of law-abiding Americans own such firearms and magazines for self-defense, sport, and other legitimate activities. Because these arms fall within the plain text of the Second Amendment, the burden shifted to New Jersey to justify the bans with historical analogues. The majority found no relevantly similar tradition of completely prohibiting commonly owned arms or standard-capacity magazines from the Founding era or Reconstruction.
The decision expanded a lower-court ruling that had invalidated the ban only as applied to Colt AR-15 rifles. The Third Circuit held that the constitutional protection extends to the broader category of semiautomatic rifles covered by the state statute. It also reversed the district court’s decision upholding the magazine restrictions, marking the first time a federal appeals court had invalidated a state large-capacity magazine ban on Second Amendment grounds. The ruling created a clear circuit split with other federal appellate courts that had previously upheld similar laws.
The State’s Request and the Stay Order
New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport promptly signaled the state’s intent to seek Supreme Court review. On July 31, the state moved the Third Circuit to stay issuance of its mandate—the formal order that would have directed the district court to implement the ruling and enjoin enforcement of the bans.
The Third Circuit granted the stay on August 4. The order provides that issuance of the mandate is stayed pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of the state’s anticipated petition for certiorari, or until the time for filing such a petition expires. If the Supreme Court grants review, the stay remains in place until final disposition on the merits. The court also directed the parties to file periodic status reports.
Davenport welcomed the decision, stating that it ensures the “36-year-old law will remain in place as litigation continues—providing much-needed stability on the ground.” She reiterated the state’s commitment to defending what she described as common-sense gun-safety measures.
Implications for New Jersey Gun Owners
While the stay is in effect, New Jersey residents and licensed dealers must continue to treat the existing magazine-capacity and assault-firearm restrictions as fully enforceable. Possession, transfer, or sale of prohibited magazines or listed firearms remains subject to state penalties. Advocacy groups, including ANJRPC, have cautioned gun owners against taking any action based on the July 17 merits ruling until the stay is lifted and the mandate issues.
The earliest realistic window for the bans to be lifted would come only after the Supreme Court either denies certiorari or rules against the state on the merits—processes that could take many months. The state’s cert petition is currently due by mid-October, though extensions are possible. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear related challenges to assault-weapon bans from Illinois and Connecticut, raising the possibility that New Jersey’s case could be held pending those decisions.
Broader Second Amendment Context
The Third Circuit’s July ruling was widely viewed as a significant expansion of post-Bruen Second Amendment protections. By holding that both the arms themselves and the magazines that come standard with them are protected, the court rejected the government’s attempt to redefine common, lawfully owned equipment as somehow outside constitutional coverage. The decision also underscored that historical tradition, not modern policy preferences or statistical claims about public safety, governs the analysis.
Gun-rights organizations have emphasized that a stay is a routine procedural step in high-stakes constitutional litigation and does not diminish the strength of the underlying opinion. At the same time, the stay highlights the practical reality that lower-court victories often require further appellate confirmation before they deliver tangible relief to citizens.
Looking Ahead
The next phase will unfold at the Supreme Court. New Jersey will file its petition arguing that the Third Circuit erred and that the circuit split warrants review. Plaintiffs will urge the Court either to deny certiorari—allowing the favorable Third Circuit decision to stand—or to grant review and affirm the ruling on the merits.
Until the high court acts, New Jersey’s magazine ban and related restrictions remain the law of the state. The Third Circuit’s stay preserves that status quo, but the constitutional analysis that produced the July 17 decision continues to stand as a powerful statement that the Second Amendment protects the arms and accessories most commonly chosen by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes. The ultimate resolution of these questions will shape firearm policy not only in New Jersey but across the nation.
New Jersey Magazine Restrictions: Current Status and Pending Developments
New Jersey has long maintained one of the nation’s strictest limits on firearm magazine capacity. For years, the state defined and prohibited “large capacity ammunition magazines” as those capable of holding more than 10 rounds. That restriction, rooted in statutes dating to the early 1990s and tightened in 2018, now stands on uncertain legal ground following a landmark federal appeals court decision. This article reviews the current legal framework, the significant judicial developments of July 2026, practical implications for residents, and the pending steps that will determine the restriction’s future.
The Existing Statutory Framework
Under New Jersey law, a large capacity ammunition magazine is defined in N.J.S.A. 2C:39-1(y) as a box, drum, tube, or other container capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition to be fed continuously and directly into a semi-automatic firearm. An exception applies to attached tubular magazines designed to hold only .22 caliber rimfire ammunition. Possession, manufacture, transport, sale, or disposal of such magazines is generally a fourth-degree crime, with limited exceptions for military and law enforcement use.
The 10-round cap replaced an earlier 15-round limit. In 2018, the legislature reduced the threshold and provided a compliance window during which owners could surrender, permanently modify, sell out of state, or transfer magazines to licensed dealers. After that window closed, no broad grandfathering remained for higher-capacity magazines. The restriction applies to detachable magazines used in both handguns and long guns. Fixed-capacity issues also factored into the state’s broader “assault firearm” definitions for certain rifles and shotguns.
Until recently, this framework was enforced as the clear status quo. Firearm dealers sold only compliant 10-round magazines, and residents who possessed higher-capacity magazines risked criminal penalties.
The July 2026 Third Circuit Decision
On July 17, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, issued a 10-5 decision in the consolidated cases known as Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General of New Jersey (and related matters including Cheeseman). The court held that New Jersey’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment.
Applying the text-and-history test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the majority concluded that magazines are “arms” protected by the Second Amendment because they are necessary for many modern firearms to function as designed. The court rejected the state’s attempt to treat magazines over 10 rounds as a distinct, unprotected category. It emphasized that both standard-capacity and higher-capacity magazines are in common use for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and that New Jersey could not identify a historical tradition of analogous magazine capacity limits from the Founding era or relevant historical period.
The same decision also struck down the state’s ban on a broad class of semi-automatic rifles as applied to commonly owned platforms. The magazine holding is particularly significant because it creates a clear circuit split: other federal circuits have upheld similar capacity restrictions, while the Third Circuit became the first appellate court sitting en banc to invalidate one on Second Amendment grounds.
Current Enforcement Status as of Early August 2026
As of August 2, 2026, the 10-round restriction remains enforceable in practical terms. An appellate decision does not automatically rewrite state law or halt enforcement the day it is issued. The Third Circuit must issue its mandate—the formal directive to the district court to implement the ruling. Under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the mandate was expected to issue around August 7–10, 2026, roughly seven days after the July 31 deadline for petitions for rehearing.
On July 31, New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport’s office filed a motion asking the Third Circuit to stay the mandate while the state prepares a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court. That motion pauses issuance of the mandate until the court rules on the stay request. The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs has publicly urged residents not to act on the July 17 decision until the stay application is resolved and any resulting injunction is clear.
New Jersey State Police had earlier informed some dealers of a July 31 effective date, but the Attorney General’s office later clarified the timeline and the impact of further litigation. Guidance for law enforcement and the public remains under development. In short, possession or sale of magazines over 10 rounds continues to carry legal risk until a stay is denied (or expires) and the lower court enters an implementing order.
Pending Developments and Next Steps
Several paths remain open. The Third Circuit will decide the state’s stay motion. If the stay is granted, the restriction continues while New Jersey seeks Supreme Court review. If denied, the state can request a stay from the Supreme Court itself. The state’s certiorari petition would be due in mid-October 2026 if timelines hold.
The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear related challenges to semi-automatic rifle restrictions from other jurisdictions. A circuit split on magazine capacity increases the likelihood that the Court will eventually address the issue nationally. In the interim, the district court will handle implementation details once the mandate issues, including any remaining questions about other firearms covered by New Jersey’s statutes.
Legislatively, at least one bill—A5128—has been introduced in the 2026–2027 session to remove capacity limits entirely and adjust related assault-firearm definitions. It remains in committee and has not advanced. State lawmakers have also discussed alternative measures, such as enhanced storage requirements, in response to the judicial setbacks.
Practical Considerations for New Jersey Residents
Until the legal process concludes, compliance with the existing 10-round limit remains the safest course. Residents who previously modified magazines or disposed of higher-capacity ones during the 2018 compliance period should not assume automatic restoration of rights. Dealers have received mixed signals about inventory and sales, and some have prepared for potential demand while awaiting official guidance.
The Third Circuit’s ruling rests on the principle that magazines enabling standard operation of common firearms are protected arms, not unprotected accessories subject to arbitrary numerical caps. Whether that principle becomes the controlling law in New Jersey depends on the stay decision, any Supreme Court involvement, and subsequent district court orders. For now, the 10-round restriction continues to define the legal landscape while the next phase of litigation unfolds.
Virginia’s “Assault Weapons” Ban: Current Status and Pending Developments as of Today
Virginia’s controversial restrictions on so-called “assault firearms” and large-capacity magazines remain on the books but are largely unenforceable statewide following a series of court injunctions and coordinated stays pending U.S. Supreme Court guidance. Signed into law by Governor Abigail Spanberger in May 2026 as companion measures SB 749 and HB 217, the legislation was scheduled to take effect July 1, 2026. It prohibits the import, sale, manufacture, purchase, or transfer of defined “assault firearms” and magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition, classifying violations as Class 1 misdemeanors with a three-year firearms prohibition for those convicted. Pre-existing ownership is grandfathered, but future transfers of covered items are barred.
The law employs a features-based definition rather than a list of specific models. Covered items include certain semi-automatic centerfire rifles that accept detachable magazines and possess one or more features such as a folding, telescoping, or collapsible stock; a thumbhole stock or protruding pistol grip; a second handgrip; a grenade launcher; or a threaded barrel capable of accepting a muzzle device or suppressor. Parallel provisions apply to certain semi-automatic pistols (requiring two or more listed features) and shotguns, as well as firearms modified to meet the criteria. Manually operated firearms (bolt, pump, lever, or slide action), antiques, and permanently inoperable firearms are excluded. Large-capacity magazines are defined as devices holding or readily convertible to more than 15 rounds (with limited exceptions for certain .22 rimfire tubular magazines).
Court Challenges and Statewide Injunction
Gun rights organizations and individuals quickly filed multiple lawsuits in state and federal court, arguing the restrictions violate both the Second Amendment and Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. Key state cases include Santolla v. Katz (Washington County), Crump v. Katz (Lancaster County), Curtis v. Katz (Spotsylvania County), and Black v. Hook (Fauquier County). Federal challenges include McDonald v. Katz (Eastern District of Virginia) and a Department of Justice suit, United States v. Commonwealth of Virginia.
In late June 2026, Lancaster County Circuit Judge John Martin issued a preliminary injunction in Crump v. Katz blocking Virginia State Police enforcement, finding the law likely conflicts with the state constitution. Days later, Washington County Circuit Judge Jeffrey Campbell granted a broader preliminary injunction in Santolla v. Katz. On July 7, Campbell amended the order to apply statewide, enjoining all law enforcement agencies of the Commonwealth and its localities, along with all Commonwealth’s Attorneys, from enforcing the provisions. The injunction took full effect around July 21 and runs for approximately one year or until a final court order.
As a practical result, gun shops across Virginia resumed sales of previously covered firearms and magazines once the statewide order became effective. The Attorney General’s Office has noted that the injunctions bar enforcement but do not invalidate the underlying statutes. Many local Commonwealth’s Attorneys had already signaled reluctance or outright refusal to prosecute under the new restrictions even before the broader order.
Stays Pending Supreme Court Review
A pivotal development occurred on June 30, 2026, when the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases presenting nearly identical questions: Viramontes v. Cook County, Illinois and Grant v. Higgins (Connecticut). Consolidated for argument, the cases ask “Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” The Court is expected to hear the matter during its October 2026 Term, with a decision likely in 2027.
Recognizing that the Supreme Court’s ruling will provide controlling guidance, the parties in most Virginia challenges agreed to stay proceedings. As of the Virginia Office of the Attorney General’s July 31, 2026 status update, courts in Washington, Spotsylvania, and Fauquier counties have stayed their cases. Federal courts have issued similar stays. Parties must submit filings within 30 days of any Supreme Court decision addressing how the Virginia matters should proceed.
The Lancaster County plaintiffs have declined to join the stay. A hearing on the Commonwealth’s stay request in that case is scheduled for August 21, 2026. Separately, related restrictions on the public carrying of certain firearms (from companion legislation) were delayed by a budget amendment until July 1, 2027.
Broader Context and Implications
Supporters of the ban, including Attorney General Jay Jones and legislative sponsors, maintain that the measures target weapons designed for rapid fire and high casualty counts, arguing they will reduce gun violence while remaining compliant with constitutional limits. They point to the grandfathering of existing ownership and exemptions for law enforcement and certain transfers as balancing public safety with individual rights. Opponents, including the NRA, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America, and Virginia Citizens Defense League, contend the law bans firearms that are among the most commonly owned in America for lawful purposes such as self-defense, sport, and hunting. They argue there is no historical tradition of prohibiting such arms under the Bruen framework and that the features tests are arbitrary.
Judge Campbell’s reasoning in the Washington County case rejected the Commonwealth’s analogy to the National Firearms Act of 1934, noting that the banned items are not NFA-regulated and that the restrictions likely violate the state constitutional guarantee. The statewide scope of the injunction has created temporary uniformity, allowing continued commerce in the covered items while litigation pauses.
Looking Ahead
As of today Virginians may continue to buy, sell, and transfer the firearms and magazines that would otherwise be restricted under SB 749/HB 217 because of the active statewide injunction. Enforcement is barred for state police and local prosecutors. The statutes themselves remain on the books and could become fully operative depending on the outcomes of the pending cases and, most importantly, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on AR-15-style rifles.
Key near-term dates include the August 21 hearing in Lancaster County and the eventual Supreme Court oral arguments and opinion. After the high Court rules, the stayed Virginia cases will resume with filings due 30 days later. Additional legislative activity in future General Assembly sessions remains possible, as does further appellate review of the existing injunctions. Gun owners, dealers, and local officials are advised to monitor official court orders and seek specific legal counsel for individual circumstances, as the injunctions address enforcement rather than permanently voiding the statutes.
The Virginia experience illustrates the rapid interplay between state legislation, state constitutional claims, federal Second Amendment litigation, and national Supreme Court review. For now, the ban is on hold statewide, with its ultimate fate tied closely to the Court’s resolution of whether the Second Amendment protects commonly owned semi-automatic rifles of the AR-15 platform and similar designs.
ATF Form 1 Rule Change: What the “Conforming” Update Means
In early May 2026, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives published a final rule that received little mainstream attention but quickly drew scrutiny from Second Amendment advocates and content creators. Titled “Conforming Change for Approving a Making Application” (ATF No. 2025R-21F, RIN 1140-AA79), the rule amended 27 CFR 479.64 to explicitly require a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check as part of processing ATF Form 1 applications. The ATF change may be referenced here.
Form 1 is the application individuals or entities use to make and register National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms—most commonly suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons.” The change took effect immediately on May 6, 2026. ATF described it as a technical, conforming update that simply wrote longstanding practice into the regulations so they match both the statute and the parallel rules for Form 4 transfers.
Critics and analysts, including those covering the rule in detail, have asked whether the move is pure housekeeping or part of a broader effort by the agency to shore up its regulatory framework after years of courtroom setbacks.
Background: Form 1, the NFA, and Statutory Requirements
Under the National Firearms Act, no one may make an NFA firearm without first filing an application and receiving ATF approval. The governing statute, 26 U.S.C. 5822, requires that applications be denied if making or possessing the firearm would place the applicant in violation of law. Parallel language appears in 26 U.S.C. 5812 for transfers.
For decades ATF has run NICS checks on both Form 1 (making) and Form 4 (transfer) applicants. The regulation governing Form 4 transfers (27 CFR 479.86) already stated explicitly that the Director “shall contact the National Instant Criminal Background Check System” in addition to any other records checks. The regulation governing Form 1 applications (the pre-amendment version of 27 CFR 479.64) contained no comparable explicit reference to NICS, even though the statute demanded denial of unlawful applications and ATF performed the checks in practice.
The May 2026 final rule closed that gap. It amended § 479.64 to add language paralleling the Form 4 provision: an application must be denied if making or possessing the firearm would place the maker in violation of law, and to make that determination the Director must contact NICS. The rule also made minor technical edits for plain writing, form references, and the authority citation for Part 479.
ATF stated that the amendment imposes no new obligations on the public, creates no additional compliance costs, and simply reflects existing practice. Because the agency classified it as a rule of agency procedure or practice rather than a substantive change affecting public rights or duties, it claimed exemption from the normal notice-and-comment requirements and delayed effective date under the Administrative Procedure Act.
What Actually Changed for Applicants
For the typical Form 1 filer—someone building a suppressor, converting a rifle to an SBR, or making another NFA item—the practical process remains largely the same. Applicants still submit the form (increasingly via eForms), fingerprints where required, photographs or photo ID, and the applicable tax (now $0 for most items other than machine guns and destructive devices under the 2025 statutory change). ATF continues to run the NICS check it has long performed.
The regulatory text now mirrors the Form 4 standard. That consistency eliminates one potential argument that the agency’s internal procedures for making applications were incomplete relative to the statute or to the transfer rules. The updated regulation now reads, in substance, that the Director will consider the application and, in addition to other records checks, must contact NICS to determine whether the applicant would be violating the law by making or possessing the firearm.
ATF has emphasized that processing times for high-volume NFA forms have improved significantly in recent years even as application volume has risen, but this particular rule does not alter timelines, fees, or documentation requirements beyond the explicit NICS reference.
Why the Agency Made the Change Now
The official explanation is straightforward: consistency with the statute and with existing Form 4 language, plus reflection of longstanding operational practice. The broader context, however, includes years of litigation challenging ATF rulemaking. Courts have scrutinized agency interpretations on pistol braces, bump stocks, frames and receivers, “engaged in the business” definitions, and other topics. The Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) ended Chevron deference, making courts less inclined to defer to agency readings of ambiguous statutes and increasing pressure on agencies to ensure their regulations track statutory text closely.
In that environment, “quiet” conforming amendments serve a defensive purpose. By aligning the Form 1 regulation with both the statute’s denial requirement and the already-explicit Form 4 NICS language, ATF reduces the risk that a future challenger could argue the agency lacked clear regulatory authority for a step it was already taking. Analysts covering the rule have described it as the agency cleaning up internal inconsistencies and removing potential legal weak points before they can be exploited in court.
The rule was issued as part of a larger package of May 2026 regulatory actions under the current administration’s broader review of firearms regulations. While some of those actions involved proposed rescissions or burden reductions, this particular change is procedural and clarifying rather than deregulatory in nature.
Implications for Gun Owners and NFA Applicants
Law-abiding applicants who pass a background check experience no material change. The NICS check was already occurring; it is now written into the regulation in the same terms used for transfers. Prohibited persons remain barred, as the statute has always required.
The change does reinforce that Form 1 approval is not automatic and that ATF retains the duty to confirm the applicant is not prohibited. It also underscores the agency’s preference for regulatory symmetry between making and transferring NFA items. In an era of frequent litigation over administrative process, explicit regulatory language can make agency actions harder to attack on procedural grounds.
For those following NFA policy more broadly, the episode is a reminder that seemingly technical Federal Register notices can reveal how agencies respond to judicial constraints. After multiple high-profile losses and the end of Chevron, agencies have incentives to tighten language, eliminate gaps, and document existing practices so that future challenges focus on substance rather than procedural incompleteness.
Looking Ahead
This conforming rule does not expand the universe of people who may lawfully make NFA firearms, nor does it impose new taxes, waiting periods, or marking requirements. It simply makes the regulation governing Form 1 applications say out loud what ATF has been doing for years and what the parallel Form 4 regulation already required.
Second Amendment advocates should continue monitoring both the substance of NFA policy and the administrative mechanics by which ATF implements it. Court decisions limiting agency deference, statutory tax reductions on most NFA items, and ongoing modernization of forms and processing all form part of the current landscape. Quiet conforming amendments like this one illustrate how agencies adapt their rulebooks when the judicial environment becomes less forgiving of regulatory ambiguity.
For most Form 1 applicants the day-to-day process is unchanged. The regulation, however, is now clearer, more consistent with the transfer rules, and more closely aligned with the statutory command that applications be denied when making or possessing the firearm would violate the law. That clarity serves the agency’s litigation posture even if it leaves the practical experience of lawful makers essentially the same.
United States v. Squire: A Fifth Circuit Case Testing the Limits of Federal Gun Bans
In the summer of 2026, a relatively routine federal firearms prosecution in Louisiana transformed into one of the most closely watched challenges to congressional power in years. United States v. Squire, No. 25-30324, began as an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to the federal felon-in-possession statute. By July, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had vacated the panel opinion and agreed to rehear the case en banc, reframing the dispute around the Commerce Clause. The case now asks a foundational question: Does Congress have the constitutional authority to criminalize simple possession of a firearm inside a private home merely because the gun once crossed a state line?
The outcome could affect not only 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) but the broader architecture of federal criminal law that rests on attenuated connections to interstate commerce.
The Underlying Facts
Curtis Squire’s case originated in New Orleans. On February 15, 2024, a shooting occurred in the city. Ten days later, New Orleans Police Department officers executed a search warrant at Squire’s residence based on allegations of his involvement. Officers recovered a Glock Model 23C .40-caliber pistol with a large-capacity magazine and twenty live rounds. Forensic testing later established that the recovered firearm was not linked to the shooting. Related state charges were dismissed.
Federal prosecutors, however, charged Squire under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8) for being a felon in possession of a firearm. Squire’s criminal history included prior Louisiana convictions for conspiracy to distribute heroin, distribution of heroin, possession of a firearm in connection with a controlled substance, obstruction of justice, simple burglary, and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle. These prior offenses made him a prohibited person under federal law.
In January 2025, Squire pleaded guilty without a plea agreement, preserving his right to appeal constitutional challenges. The district court sentenced him to 52 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release. In the factual basis for the plea, Squire admitted that the firearm and ammunition had previously traveled in interstate commerce and were manufactured outside Louisiana—the standard jurisdictional hook used in nearly every modern § 922(g) prosecution.
The Panel Decision: Dangerousness Over Location
Squire’s primary argument on appeal centered on the Second Amendment. Relying on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024), he contended that permanently disarming him inside his own home violated the right to keep and bear arms. He argued that historical tradition did not support lifelong disarmament of individuals convicted of non-violent or non-dangerous offenses when the firearm was kept solely for self-defense at home.
On June 2, 2026, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit (Judges Clement, Southwick, and Engelhardt) rejected the challenge and affirmed the conviction. Writing for the panel, Judge Edith Brown Clement applied Bruen’s two-step framework. The court first acknowledged that the plain text of the Second Amendment covered Squire’s conduct, rendering it presumptively protected. At the second step, however, the government carried its burden by demonstrating a historical tradition of disarming classes of persons regarded as dangerous.
The panel emphasized that drug trafficking constitutes an “inherently dangerous activity.” Historical analogues—laws disarming those perceived as threats to public order, including certain political dissidents and religious minorities in earlier eras—supported categorical disarmament of convicted drug traffickers. Critically, the court rejected any special constitutional protection for possession inside the home when the predicate offense involved dangerousness. “The home-based distinction [Squire] attempts to draw within our Nation’s historical tradition is mugged by the reality that our historical laws support his disarmament, even in the special confines of his home,” the opinion stated.
The holding was expressly narrow. The panel did not decide whether Congress could disarm individuals based solely on non-dangerous felony convictions when the firearm remained inside the home. It affirmed only that § 922(g)(1) could constitutionally reach a convicted drug trafficker under these circumstances.
From Second Amendment to Commerce Clause
After the panel decision, Squire petitioned for rehearing en banc. His lawyers largely set aside the Second Amendment arguments that the panel had rejected and instead pressed a facial challenge under the Commerce Clause. They argued that Congress lacks authority to criminalize purely local possession of a firearm simply because the gun once traveled in interstate commerce. Relying on United States v. Lopez (1995), which struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, Squire contended that the attenuated “once crossed state lines” theory converts the Commerce Clause into a general police power reserved to the states.
This reframing gained sudden traction following a concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas in United States v. Hemani, decided June 18, 2026. In Hemani, the Supreme Court unanimously held that § 922(g)(3)—the prohibition on firearm possession by unlawful drug users—violated the Second Amendment as applied to a habitual marijuana user with no showing of dangerousness. Justice Thomas joined the majority but wrote separately to question the Commerce Clause foundation of § 922(g) more broadly.
Thomas argued that the prevailing interpretation—allowing conviction whenever a firearm had previously traveled in interstate commerce—exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers. “The Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to ‘regulate or ban possession of any item that has ever been offered for sale or crossed state lines,’” he wrote. Such an approach, he warned, would “convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States.” He called on lower courts to reexamine the constitutionality of § 922(g) in an appropriate case.
Less than five weeks later, the Fifth Circuit answered that call.
The En Banc Order and a Sharp Dissent
On July 20, 2026, the full Fifth Circuit granted rehearing en banc by majority vote of the active judges. The short per curiam order vacated the June 2 panel opinion and directed the clerk to set a new briefing schedule and oral argument date. The case would proceed as a facial Commerce Clause challenge rather than the narrower Second Amendment dispute decided by the panel.
Judge Stephen A. Higginson dissented from the grant of rehearing. His opinion highlighted the dramatic shift in the case’s focus and the potential systemic consequences. “Today, we grant a petition for rehearing in what was a Second Amendment as-applied challenge to § 922(g)(1), now reframed as a facial Commerce Clause challenge,” he wrote. Higginson warned that the court was inviting a ruling with “untold consequences for federal law,” potentially reaching far beyond firearms statutes to other federal crimes predicated on similar commerce hooks—child pornography, explosives, biological agents, and a host of regulatory offenses.
He noted that § 922(g) contains an explicit interstate-commerce element, unlike the statute struck down in Lopez, and that Squire had admitted the jurisdictional facts. Higginson expressed concern that the Fifth Circuit was expanding Lopez in a manner that could destabilize large portions of the U.S. Code.
Broader Stakes for Federal Authority
United States v. Squire arrives at a moment of renewed judicial skepticism toward expansive readings of the Commerce Clause. For three decades, lower courts have uniformly upheld § 922(g) convictions based on the minimal “prior interstate travel” showing. That consensus rested on post-Lopez and Gonzales v. Raich (2005) doctrine treating even attenuated effects on interstate markets as sufficient.
If the Fifth Circuit accepts Squire’s argument, it would create a circuit split of the first order and almost certainly force Supreme Court review. A ruling limiting Congress’s power could require prosecutors to prove a more substantial contemporary connection to interstate commerce—something far harder to establish for a gun kept in a drawer at home. Such a decision would not automatically restore Second Amendment rights to all prohibited persons; state laws would still apply. But it would sharply constrain the federal government’s ability to police local firearm possession.
Gun-rights advocates view the case as a long-overdue examination of whether the federal government has claimed powers the Constitution never granted. Critics of expansive federal criminal law see potential for broader recalibration. Public-safety advocates and many federal prosecutors argue that weakening the commerce foundation of § 922(g) would undermine a primary tool used against violent offenders and repeat felons.
Looking Ahead
As of late July 2026, the Fifth Circuit has not yet scheduled oral argument or issued a new briefing calendar. Amicus participation is expected to be extensive, drawing briefs from the Solicitor General’s office, state attorneys general, Second Amendment organizations, criminal-defense groups, and scholars of constitutional structure.
Whatever the full court ultimately decides, United States v. Squire has already accomplished something rare: it has forced a serious judicial conversation about the outer boundaries of federal power over local conduct. A case that began with a handgun recovered during a New Orleans search warrant now sits at the intersection of the Second Amendment, the Commerce Clause, and the enduring debate over the proper scope of national authority in a federal system. The full Fifth Circuit’s forthcoming decision will determine whether that conversation remains confined to firearms or expands into a more fundamental reexamination of congressional power.
July 26, 2026. We will be performing server updates throughout the day. In the meantime be sure to browse our entire news catalog of 2A articles on our website or our social media links (Facebook, Instagram, Threads, X, Truth Social, and YouTube).
