Second Amendment/ATF related cases

[Live Life]

From "Ammunition Restriction and expanding to Importation of arms/ammo" post - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461220#msg1461220

Sporting Firearms Access Act ... the bill would amend the Gun Control Act of 1968

The Sporting Firearms Access Act clarifies the definition of “sporting purposes” used by the ATF to regulate import of firearms into the U.S. The new definition would recognize firearms and ammunitions used for activities such as hunting, target shooting, and competitions.

Under the Gun Control Act of 1968, firearms and ammunition can only be imported if the ATF recognizes it as being suitable for “sporting purposes.” Ambiguity in the law has allowed the ATF to arbitrarily deny imports of firearms by U.S. customers and businesses.

No ... They need to amend that language

Perhaps they could use "lawful purposes" instead?

Better. 

He's my Senator, so I should probably send him an email.

I don't like that.  Self defense isn't considered lawful to some people.

I suggested "lawful purposes" because that's how the Supreme Court ruled in Heller - https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm ... and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense

And "lawful purposes" would cover everything from "sporting purposes” including hunting, target shooting, competitions to self-defense and collecting.

[Live Life]

Adding to Pro-2A organizations efforts and accomplishments - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1459450#msg1459450

December 20, 2023: Federal District Judge Cormac J. Carney issued a preliminary injunction in its Carralero v. Bonta lawsuit, blocking enforcement of California’s newest ban on firearm carry. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-judge-blocks-californias-sb2-handgun-carry-bans

November 14, 2023: Judge John Milton Younge of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment for the plaintiff in Williams v. Garland, which challenged the federal Gun Control Act’s lifetime ban on the exercise of Second Amendment rights due to a single misdemeanor conviction for a crime that did not involve violence, physical harm, or a firearm. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-judge-rules-for-plaintiff-in-fpc-supported-lawsuit-that-challenged-lifetime-gun-ban-for-non-violent-misdemeanor-conviction

November 9, 2023: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in FPC’s favor, holding that portions of ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule are unlawful in VanDerStok v. Garland. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fifth-circuit-vacates-atfs-unlawful-frame-or-receiver-rule

October 19, 2023: Judge Roger T. Benitez of the Southern District of California issued an opinion in Miller v. Bonta, once again holding that California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-judge-again-strikes-down-california-assault-weapon-ban

September 29, 2023: United States District Court Judge George L. Russell, III issued a preliminary injunction in FPC’s lawsuit Novotny v. Moore against Maryland’s ban on firearm carry in locations selling alcohol, private buildings or property without the owner’s consent, and within 1,000 feet of a public demonstration. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-judge-issues-preliminary-injunction-against-maryland-public-carry-bans

September 13, 2023: In FPC’s lawsuit, Fort v. Grisham, United States District Court Judge David Urias issued a temporary restraining order against New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s executive order banning firearm carry in Bernalillo County and Albuquerque. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-judge-issues-temporary-restraining-order-enjoining-new-mexico-governors-total-carry-ban

August 10, 2023: In 2022, Patrick Daniels was convicted in federal court for possessing a firearm while being an “unlawful user” of marijuana, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). Because of that conviction, he was forever banned from possessing firearms, a fundamental right protected by the Second Amendment. A Fifth Circuit panel held that ban unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Daniels. FPC and FPCAF filed an amicus brief in this case, urging the result that the court reached. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-and-fpcaf-statement-on-fifth-circuit-holding-18-usc-922g3-unconstitutional-as-applied-to-marijuana-user

August 1, 2023: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Mock v. Garland, finding that FPC and FPCAF are likely to win on the merits of their lawsuit challenging ATF’s pistol brace rule. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fifth-circuit-rules-that-atf-pistol-brace-rule-is-likely-illegal

June 30, 2023: Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced that a federal judge has granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs in VanDerStok v. Garland, vacating the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule and preventing the federal government from enforcing it. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc_and_fpcaf_win_federal_judge_vacates_atf_s_unlawful_frame_or_receiver_rule

June 24, 2023: The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the federal government’s attempt to completely stay the district court’s decision in VanDerStok v. Garland, which vacated ATF’s unlawful “frame or receiver” rule. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fifth-circuit-denies-government-attempt-to-reinstate-atfs-redefinitions-of-frame-or-receiver-and-firearm

June 6, 2023: The Third Circuit struck down federal prohibited persons ban as applied to Range. FPC and FPCAF filed amicus briefs in this case at both the 3-judge and en banc panel stages, and FPCAF’s Director of Constitutional Studies, Joseph Greenlee, argued the case as an amicus curiae before the 3-judge panel. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-and-fpcaf-statement-on-third-circuits-restoration-of-gun-rights-following-non-violent-conviction

June 6, 2023: United States District Judge Roger Benitez has approved a $556,957.66 stipulation for attorneys’ fees stemming from its Miller v. Bonta (Miller II) lawsuit that successfully challenged the fee-shifting provision in California SB 1327, which was enacted as retribution for Texas’s SB 8 abortion law in order to suppress legitimate challenges to firearms regulations. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/california-agrees-to-pay-plaintiffs-legal-fees-after-losing-lawsuit-that-challenged-its-discriminatory-firearm-lawsuit-fee-shifting-regime

May 26, 2023: The Fifth Circuit issued an Order clarifying that the Injunction Pending Appeal in Mock v. Garland applies to FPC’s members, Maxim Defense’s customers, and the individual plaintiffs’ resident family members. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fifth-circuit-clarifies-that-its-injunction-against-atf-pistol-brace-rule-covers-fpc-s-members

May 23, 2023: The Fifth Circuit issued an Order granting an Injunction Pending Appeal in Mock v. Garland, FPC and FPC Action Foundation’s federal lawsuit challenging the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF’s) recent rule reclassifying braced pistols as National Firearms Act (NFA)-regulated short-barreled rifles. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-secures-injunction-against-atf-pistol-brace-rule-will-seek-clarification-on-scope-of-ruling

May 18, 2023: FPC announced that Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo vetoed AB354 and AB355, which would have restricted residents’ ability to self-manufacture firearms and banned young adults from possessing common rifles and shotguns. In doing so, Lombardo cited rulings in FPC’s Rigby v. Jennings and Jones v. Bonta cases as reasons for the vetoes. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/nevada-governor-lombardo-vetoes-gun-control-bills-cites-fpc-legal-cases-as-reason

May 16, 2023: FPC announced the successful acquisition of a preliminary injunction against multiple aspects of the New Jersey gun control law passed to severely restrict the ability of those with carry permits from actually being able to carry in public in its Koons v. Platkin lawsuit. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/court-issues-preliminary-injunction-in-fpc-case-against-new-jersey-restrictions-on-bearing-arms

April 28. 2023: FPC announced the granting of a preliminary injunction in its lawsuit Harrel v. Raoul, challenging the Illinois “Protect Illinois Communities Act” (“PICA”). In the opinion, United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois Judge Stephen P. McGlynn ruled that PICA’s ban on commonly owned semi automatic firearms, and the magazines they utilize, likely violate the Second Amendment and should therefore be enjoined. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/court-enjoins-enforcement-illinois-assault-weapon-magazine-capacity-bans

March 31, 2023: United States District Court for the District of Minnesota Judge Katherine Menedez ruled in FPC’s Worth v. Harrington lawsuit that Minnesota’s requirement that individuals be at least 21 years of age to be eligible for a carry permit violated Plaintiffs’ rights, and enjoined the state from further enforcement of the practice. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc_granted_summary_judgment_in_worth_v_harrington_230331

January 9, 2023: FPC announced the successful acquisition of a Temporary Restraining Order against multiple aspects of New Jersey’s new gun control regime in its Koons v. Reynolds lawsuit. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc_win_court_issues_tro_new_jersey_gun_control_package_230109

December 20, 2022: Texas asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to withdraw the state’s appeal of the district court order that struck down its ban on handgun carry by young adults in FPC’s Andrews v. McCraw lawsuit. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/texas-withdraws-appeal-in-lawsuit-that-struck-down-its-ban-on-handgun-carry-by-young-adults

December 19, 2022: In FPC’s Miller v. Bonta (Miller II lawsuit, United States District Judge Roger Benitez issued an order enjoining the fee-shifting provision in California SB 1327, which was enacted as retribution for Texas’s SB 8 abortion law in order to suppress legitimate challenges to firearms regulations. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-judge-blocks-californias-discriminatory-firearm-lawsuit-fee-shifting-regime

December 6, 2022: United States District Judge Karin Immergut adopted FPC's position regarding the implementation challenges of Oregon Measure 114’s “permit-to-purchase” law and the state's associated admission that the system would not be ready in time - and stayed its enforcement for 30 days in FPC’s Fitz v. Rosenblum lawsuit. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-responds-to-federal-judge-staying-implementation-of-oregon-permit-to-purchase-requirement-denying-temporary-restraining-order

December 2, 2022: United States District Judge Roger Benitez issued an order in FPC’s lawsuit Miller v. Bonta (Miller II), determining that it can continue with its lawsuit challenging the provisions in California SB 1327 designed to suppress legitimate challenges to firearms regulations. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-lawsuit-challenging-californias-discriminatory-fee-shifting-regime-can-continue-federal-judge-rules

November 28, 2022: United States District Judge John Sinatra, Jr. issued a preliminary injunction against New York’s law banning guns on all private property without express consent in FPC’s Christian v. Nigrelli lawsuit. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-victory-federal-judge-blocks-new-yorks-default-private-property-handgun-carry-ban

November 3, 2022: In FPC’s lawsuit, Hardaway v. Bruen, United States District Judge John Sinatra, Jr. issued a preliminary injunction against New York’s ban on guns in “any place of worship or religious observation.” https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-victory-federal-judge-again-blocks-new-york-places-of-worship-handgun-carry-ban

October 24, 2022: Because of New York’s defeat in NYSRPA v. Bruen, New York City’s subsequent elimination of the city’s “proper cause” requirement, and the acquisition of unrestricted carry permits by all individual plaintiffs, the parties in its Greco v. NYC litigation filed a stipulation to dismiss the case as moot. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/parties-dismiss-new-york-city-carry-ban-lawsuit-after-policy-changes-made-new-york-defeated-in-bruen

October 20, 2022: United States District Judge John Sinatra, Jr. issued a temporary restraining order against New York’s ban on guns in “any place of worship or religious observation” in FPC’s Hardaway v. Bruen lawsuit. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-victory-federal-judge-blocks-new-yorks-places-of-worship-handgun-carry-ban

October 14, 2022: San Diego Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal issued a preliminary injunction in FPC’s Barba v. Bonta lawsuit challenging California Assembly Bill 173, which requires the state’s Department of Justice to share the personal identifying information of millions of gun and ammunition owners with other parties for non-law-enforcement purposes. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-victory-judge-issues-injunction-against-california-gun-owner-data-sharing-law

October 3, 2022: A federal judge expanded the preliminary injunction in FPC's lawsuit, VanDerStok v. Garland, challenging the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule. In addition to the injunction issued in September, the expanded injunction adds protection for the individual plaintiffs and plaintiff Tactical Machining’s customers. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-secures-expanded-preliminary-injunction-in-lawsuit-challenging-atf-frame-or-receiver-rule

September 23, 2022: United States District Judge Maryellen Noreika issued an order enjoining Delaware’s bans on self-manufacturing and possession of home-built firearms in FPC’s Rigby v. Jennings lawsuit. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-victory-federal-judge-blocks-delaware-ban-on-self-built-firearm-possession-home-manufacturing

September 2, 2022: FPC secured a partial victory in the form of a partial and limited injunction in its VanDerStok v. Garland lawsuit challenging the ATF’s rule that would create new terms and enact a slew of regulations for the agency to enforce. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-secures-partial-preliminary-injunction-in-lawsuit-challenging-atf-frame-or-receiver-rule

August 25, 2022: A federal judge struck down Texas’ ban on handgun carry by young adults in FPC’s Andrews v. McCraw lawsuit. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-judge-strikes-down-texas-ban-on-handgun-carry-by-young-adults

August 12, 2022: The Sixth Circuit sent FPC’s Oakland Tactical v. Howell case back to the district court to be re-heard in light of Bruen. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-succeeds-in-appeal-of-lawsuit-challenging-ban-on-shooting-ranges-for-long-guns

August 10, 2022: The Court granted FPC’s petition for writ of mandamus and ordered the DOJ to stop enforcing the delay policy and practice. The Court’s judgment reiterates that the DOJ must allow for delivery of firearms after the conclusion of the 10-day waiting period unless it has identified one of the three bases for delay or already determined that the purchaser is ineligible as a result of FPC’s Campos v. Bonta lawsuit. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-wins-lawsuit-challenging-california-firearms-purchase-delays

June 30, 2022: The Supreme Court granted, vacated, and remanded FPC’s Bianchi v. Frosh lawsuit, which challenges Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons.” The case will now return to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals “for further consideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen.” https://www.firearmspolicy.org/supreme-court-vacates-decision-upholding-maryland-assault-weapon-ban-sends-fpc-lawsuit-back

June 23, 2022: The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry firearms in public. FPC filed an amicus brief in the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/new-york-gun-carry-ban-unconstitutional-supreme-court-rules-in-fpc-supported-case

Continued on next post

[Live Life]

Continued from previous post

Adding to Pro-2A organizations efforts and accomplishments - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461442#msg1461442

January 15, 2025: Federal Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has reaffirmed its prior opinion in FPC’s Lara v. Paris lawsuit, again striking down Pennsylvania’s laws preventing 18-to-20-year-old adults from openly carrying a loaded firearm outside of the home during a declared state of emergency. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/third-circuit-again-strikes-down-pennsylvania-young-adult-carry-ban

November 8, 2024: Federal District Court Judge Stephen P. McGlynn ruled in the FPC Law case of Harrel v. Raoul that the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), which bans semi-automatic firearms and their magazines, is unconstitutional. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-court-strikes-down-illinois-assault-weapon-and-magazine-bans

November 1 , 2024: Charges were dropped against an FPC member following an FPC-backed defense against the charges that included an affirmative attack on Savannah, Georgia’s gun control ordinance. In the case, the government had been criminally prosecuting him for violating the city’s gun storage ordinance despite Georgia’s firearm preemption law that makes the city’s ordinance invalid. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/savannah-georgia-drops-prosecution-of-gun-owner-following-fpc-backed-defense-action

October 10, 2024: The United States District Court for the Western District of New York granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs in FPC’s Christian v. James lawsuit, permanently enjoining the state’s law banning guns on all publicly-open private property without express consent of the owner, and denied the state’s request for a stay of that decision. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-judge-blocks-new-york-carry-ban

September 6, 2024: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision partially upholding FPC’s previously secured preliminary injunction against California’s Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) ban on firearm carry in public in FPC’s Carralero v. Bonta lawsuit. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/ninth-circuit-deals-blow-to-california-gun-carry-ban

August 30, 2024: Federal District Court Judge Iain D. Johnston declared the State of Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms on public transportation and in public transportation facilities unconstitutional as applied to the named plaintiffs in the FPC-supported lawsuit Schoenthal v. Raoul. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/judge-rules-illinois-transportation-carry-ban-unconstitutional-as-applied-to-plaintiffs-in-fpc-backed-federal-lawsuit

August 22, 2024: The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Minnesota’s petition for en banc (full court) review in FPC’s Worth v. Jacobson lawsuit, leaving in place a unanimous decision that the state’s age-based carry ban is unconstitutional. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/eighth-circuit-maintains-fpc-win-against-minnesotas-age-based-carry-ban

August 15, 2024: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an order reversing the previously issued stay in FPC’s Nguyen v. Bonta lawsuit, which challenges California’s “one-gun-per-month” gun ban law. With the stay reversed, the final judgment and injunction FPC secured at the district court is now in effect, which prevents the state from enforcing its “1-in-30” ban unless and until further order from the Court. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/california-1-in-30-firearm-ban-blocked-following-ninth-circuit-order

August 2, 2024: United States District Court Judge George L. Russell, III issued a decision declaring Maryland’s bans on firearm carry in locations selling alcohol, private buildings or property without the owner’s consent, and within 1,000 feet of public demonstrations unconstitutional in its federal Second Amendment lawsuit Novotny v. Moore. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-judge-declares-multiple-maryland-public-carry-bans-unconstitutional

July 30. 2024: In FPC’s Cheeseman v. Platkin lawsuit, Judge Sheridan held that the “AR-15 Provision of [New Jersey’s] Assault Firearms Law is unconstitutional under Bruen and Heller as to the Colt AR-15 for use of self-defense within the home.” https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-statement-on-cheeseman-decision-striking-down-part-of-new-jerseys-assault-weapons-

July 25. 2024: Multiple Pennsylvania laws requiring permits to open carry were declared unconstitutional as a result of FPC’s Suarez v. Paris lawsuit. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-wins-takes-out-two-pennsylvania-permit-schemes

July 16. 2024: FPC announced a major victory at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in Worth v. Jacobson, its federal Second Amendment challenge to Minnesota’s ban on carry for 18–to–20–year–olds, where the court unanimously affirmed a decision that the State’s ban is unconstitutional. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-defeats-minnesotas-age-based-carry-ban

July 11. 2024: FPC announced a decisive victory out of the District Court of New Jersey in its federal Second Amendment lawsuit challenging the state’s ‘justifiable need’ carry ban, Francisco v. Cooke. The Court approved a consent order stating that the provision violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and that the defendants in the case are responsible for the plaintiffs’ attorney’s fees and costs. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-deals-final-blow-to-new-jerseys-carry-ban-scheme

June 21, 2024: While we disagree with the Court’s holding and dispute federal authority to enforce this regulation, we are encouraged that the Court confirmed the textual and historical analysis required under its Heller and Bruen decisions. Justice Thomas adopted our arguments in his dissent of the United States v. Rahimi. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-statement-on-rahimi-decision-by-us-supreme-court

June 14, 2024: FPC and FPCAF applauded the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill, a case challenging the federal government’s unlawful ban on ‘bump-stock’ devices. Both organizations filed amicus briefs in this case. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-fpcaf-statement-on-scotus-bump-stock-decision

June 13, 2024: United States District Court Judge Reed O’Connor granted summary judgment in favor of FPC and its co-plaintiffs and issued a final judgment and order vacating the ATF’s rule in FPC’s Mock v. Garland lawsuit. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/biden-atf-pistol-brace-ban-vacated

April 25, 2024: FPC announced a victory in Lara v. Evanchick following Federal District Court Judge William S. Stickman’s order enjoining the Pennsylvania State Police Commissioner from enforcing the Commonwealth’s laws that ban 18-to-20-year-old adults from carrying a firearm outside of the home for self-defense. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/pennsylvania-handgun-carry-ban-blocked-in-fpc-second-amendment-lawsuit

April 15, 2024: The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled against the State in a Friday decision, maintaining the injunction against gun control Measure 114. As a result, the State cannot enforce the unconstitutional laws enacted under the measure while the appeal is pending, in FPC’s Arnold v. Kotek lawsuit. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/oregon-gun-control-measure-114-remains-blocked-in-fpc-supported-appeal

April 10, 2024: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an injunction pending appeal FPC v. San Diego, which challenges a California law that targets only pro-Second Amendment advocates with potentially ruinous consequences for litigating gun rights cases. The injunction prevents the defendants from enforcing the scheme during the pendency of the appeal. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/ninth-circuit-issues-injunction-in-fpc-lawsuit-challenging-californias-fee-shifting-law-targeting-pro-gun-lawsuits

March 11, 2024: The District Court for the Southern District of California struck down the state’s ban on purchasing more than one handgun or semiautomatic, centerfire rifle in a 30-day period as a result of FPC’s Nguyen v. Bonta lawsuit. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/federal-judge-strikes-down-californias-one-gun-a-month-firearm-purchase-law

February 29, 2024: In FPC’s Linton v. Bonta lawsuit, the District Court for the Northern District of California ruled against the state’s laws and policies that prevent peaceable people from exercising their Second Amendment protected rights that were fully restored after their non-violent felony convictions in other states were vacated and nullified. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/california-judge-rules-against-unconstitutional-gun-ban-policy

February 12, 2024: The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that dismissed FPC’s Baughcum v. Jackson lawsuit against Georgia’s young adult handgun carry ban, saying that the case should have proceeded to the merits instead. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/appeals-court-allows-fpcs-lawsuit-against-georgia-young-adult-carry-ban-to-continue-to-merits

January 18, 2024: The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling on Lara v. Evanchick struck down Pennsylvania’s laws that prevent 18-to-20-year-old adults from carrying a loaded firearm outside of the home for self-defense. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/third-circuit-strikes-down-pennsylvania-young-adult-carry-ban

[Live Life]

Update to Carry ban cases - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1459601#msg1459601

9th Circuit En Banc denied consolidated carry in sensitive places - https://michellawyers.com/may-et-al-v-bonta/

"En banc denied in May v. Bonta, Carralero v. Bonta, and Wolford v. Lopez, our case and two others concerning overexpansive sensitive places laws in California and Hawaii. Not really surprising. Now we will either seek SCOTUS cert review, or, go back down to get a final judgment." - https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/1879591337730978202

Mark Smith suggest instead of pursuing preliminary injunctions, plaintiffs should "lose fast" to get the cases up to the Supreme Court after final merits decision.

BIG LOSS IN FEDERAL COURT "SENSITIVE PLACES" FIGHT... US Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in California denied rehearing en banc and Judge VanDyke dissented - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecttP2QxNyU

0:00 Major Breaking 2A News... - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecttP2QxNyU&t=0s
1:19 Bruen Backlash & Case Background - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecttP2QxNyU&t=79s
4:00 Why We Want To Lose Fast... - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecttP2QxNyU&t=240s
6:07 Powerful Pro-2A Dissent - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecttP2QxNyU&t=367s
7:25 List of Places Which Can & Can't Be Sensitive Places - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecttP2QxNyU&t=445s
10:18 Details of Dissents - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecttP2QxNyU&t=618s
15:44 VanDyke on Bruen's Application - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecttP2QxNyU&t=944s
17:35 What Happens Next... - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecttP2QxNyU&t=1055s

[Live Life]

Adding to Efforts to abolish/eliminate ATF and Repeal the NFA - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461341#msg1461341

Congressman Ben Cline Reintroduces Hearing Protection Act - https://cline.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1553

Full text of bill - https://cline.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hearing_protection_act_file.pdf

Congressman Ben Cline (R-VA) reintroduced the Hearing Protection Act (HPA). This legislation reduces the overly burdensome barriers required to purchase a firearm suppressor to ease access for law-abiding citizens simply trying to obtain the hearing protection they need.

“Americans who enjoy hunting and target shooting should be able to do so safely and legally without facing burdensome government regulations,” said Rep. Cline. “The Hearing Protection Act will reclassify suppressors, making it easier for law-abiding gun owners to protect their hearing while enjoying recreational activities. It’s time to ensure that our Second Amendment rights are upheld, allowing responsible citizens to enjoy their freedoms without unnecessary obstacles.”

Congressman Cline was joined by Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX), Rep. Ron Estes (R-KS), Rep. Riley Moore (R-WV), Rep. Aaron Bean (R-FL), Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY), Rep. Randy Weber (R-TX), Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL), Rep. Troy Nehls (R-TX), Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT), Rep. GT Thompson (R-PA), Rep. Rob Wittman (R-VA), Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL), Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL), Rep. Buddy Carter (R-GA), Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), Rep. Michael Bost (R-IL), Rep. Jack Bergman (R-MI), Rep. Brad Finstad (R-MN), Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA), Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO), Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN), Rep. Fulcher (R-ID), Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Rep. John McGuire (R-VA), Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL), Rep. Addison McDowell (R-NC), Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN), Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN), Rep. William Timmons (R-SC), Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-GA), Rep. Jeff Crank (R-CO), Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA), Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK), Rep. Steve Womack (R-AR), Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX), Rep. Celeste Maloy (R-UT), and Rep. James Comer (R-KY) as original cosponsors.

The Hearing Protection Act is supported by the American Suppressor Association (ASA), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the National Rifle Association (NRA), the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF), and the Academy of Doctors of Audiology (ADA).

“The Hearing Protection Act is the epitome of commonsense legislation. Law-abiding citizens should not have to pay a tax to protect their hearing when they exercise their Second Amendment rights. The American Suppressor Association applauds Rep. Cline for his leadership and willingness to fight for the rights of gunowners across the United States,” said Knox Williams, ASA President and Executive Director.

“Congressman Cline’s Hearing Protection Act will have the federal government recognize firearm suppressors for what they are. These are accessories to a firearm that make recreational shooting and hunting a safer experience,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “These safety devices reduce the report of a firearm to a level that won’t cause instant and permanent hearing damage. Despite Hollywood’s depictions, they do not mask the sound of a firearm. The focus should be on removing barriers to safe and responsible use of firearms and dedicating resources to ensuring firearms are safeguarded from those who should never possess them. Strict regulatory control of firearm accessories, and the parts of those accessories that have no bearing on the function of a firearm, is unnecessary and not the wisest use of federal resources. NSSF thanks Congressman Cline for his leadership for ensuring safe and responsible use of firearms and dedicating necessary resources where they are most needed.”

“Onerous and unnecessary government regulation shouldn’t prevent America’s hunters and recreational shooters from protecting their hearing while exercising their constitutionally protected freedoms,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA. “Suppressors do not silence firearms, but they are proven to reduce the severity of hearing loss. On behalf of our millions of members, NRA thanks Representative Ben Cline for introducing the Hearing Protection Act.”

“The Hearing Protection Act has been a longstanding priority for the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF), and we are excited to see this legislation reintroduced. Suppressors are one of the fastest growing and most popular accessories for sportsmen and women, unfortunately, current law makes acquiring suppressors an overly burdensome process, which would be addressed by this legislation. CSF thanks Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus Member Rep. Ben Cline for introducing this legislation, and we look forward to working with him in the 119th Congress to improve the suppressor purchasing process,” said CSF President and CEO Jeff Crane.

[Live Life]

Update to Carry ban cases - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461449#msg1461449

9th Circuit ... En banc denied in May v. Bonta, Carralero v. Bonta, and Wolford v. Lopez, our case and two others concerning overexpansive sensitive places laws in California and Hawaii.

Not really surprising. Now we will either seek SCOTUS cert review, or, go back down to get a final judgment.

Stay was just granted for Wolford v Lopez affecting Hawaii - https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/1879979632600215632

Mandate stayed in Wolford.

What this means:

The panel is saying "OK fine, we won't issue the mandate until after you are done trying to get cert at SCOTUS."

It's a surprising courtesy from a panel that was not all that friendly to us, so credit where it is due. This means the district court injunction in Hawaii remains in effect for a while longer. I had thought they wouldn't give us even that much rope.

We will likely do the same in May v. Bonta soon.

[Live Life]

Updated listing of 2A/ATF related cases - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460537#msg1460537

- 2A - Pro-2A organizations efforts and accomplishments - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461443#msg1461443
- 2A - National carry reciprocity - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460863#msg1460863
- 2A - Carry ban cases - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461485#msg1461485
- 2A - AW/Magazine ban - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461291#msg1461291
- 2A - Significance of Bruen Methodology tested in Rahimi case (Harvard/Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy) - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1458590#msg1458590
- 2A - Bruen methodology applied to other cases - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1459075#msg1459075
- 2A - States defying Bruen - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1459189#msg1459189
- 2A - Rahimi/Range (violent/nonviolent felon RKBA), OH state case and Drug user RKBA - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460535#msg1460535
- 2A - Handgun Roster - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/ca-handgun-roster-unsafe-handgun-act-facing-new-legal-challenges.913421/
- 2A - CA Handgun Roster (Pistols added after preliminary injunctions) - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461226#msg1461226
- 2A - Ammunition Restriction and Importation of arms/ammo - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461397#msg1461397
- 2A - Gazzola v Hochul (NY CCIA affecting ammunition/FFLs/gun shops) - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1458404#msg1458404
- 2A - Post Office Carry - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/fpc-saf-file-post-office-gun-ban-lawsuit.931523/
- 2A - B&L Productions v Newsom (CA gun show on state property) pending Supreme Court conference 1/24/25 - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1460871#msg1460871
- ATF - Bump Stock - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1458134#msg1458134
- ATF - Pistol Brace - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461341#msg1461341
- ATF - 80% frame or receiver / "ghost gun" - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf%E2%80%99s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/post-12995558
- ATF - Forced Reset Trigger - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1457850#msg1457850
- ATF - Efforts to abolish ATF/Repeal NFA/Hearing Protection Act - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461452#msg1461452

[armoredman]

Thank you again for all of your work in this thread and others, sir.

[Live Life]

Thank you again for all of your work in this thread

You are very welcome.

We are living in "historic" time of this nation to witness Second Amendment protection expanding to "modern" types of arms and accessories like First Amendment protection expanding to "modern" forms of communication like email/texting.

With "trifecta" same party control of House/Senate/White House along with majority of Supreme Court, 2025 may be the start of "best opportunity" to fulfill many things related to gun rights.

It's time for "We the People" to seize the moment.

[Live Life]

Update to Forced Reset Trigger - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1457850#msg1457850

After judge O'Connor granted NAGR and Rare Breed and other plaintiffs summary judgment and denied ATF's request for a stay, ruling was appealed to the 5th Circuit ... oral arguments were just heard in front of ... 3 judge panel

... one of the judges asked, after Cargill did Congress at all try to modify some of the statutory text to include bump stocks or even go after forced reset trigger and both sides said no, there has been no action by Congress

5th Circuit denied ATF's appeal - https://x.com/NatlGunRights/status/1880000621165834632

ORDER:

IT IS ORDERED that the opposed motion of the states to intervene as Defendents- Appellants is DENIED.  Movants may seek participation as amici

5th Circuit

Talk about a fast turn around from the 5th Circuit.

2 sentence ruling, roughly translated to: "No, and don't let the door hit you on the way out"

Let the gun grabber tears flow.

Kostas Moros - https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/1880010759209644052

"You can file an amicus. We won't read it, but you can file one!"

[Live Life]

Update to AW/Magazine Ban - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461291#msg1461291

Kostas Moros - https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/1880337509038850109

No Snope on the list today. So either relist or denial, again.

I think by next week is probably the last chance for it to be heard this term. It can still get granted after, but would be heard next term if so (probably).

And of course, always a (very) slim chance at a per curiam. For some reason I keep feeling like they are going to go that route, even though I have less than nothing to base it on.

< @703Kyle: Refresh my memory what a per curiam  would mean, it doesn't strike down any laws right so just another version of gvr? >

A short majority opinion (4 votes) resolving the petition without arguments. Caetano in 2016 was decided per curiam. That's the only example in the 2A sphere I think. 

On the one hand, this SHOULD be decided by a per curiam because the issue is simple - Heller already said government can't ban commonly owned firearms. They could give a short opinion saying as much and reversing the 4th circuit.

But in reality, it's hard to imagine Roberts deciding such a hot-button issue on that sort of basis. Caetano was just stun guns, this is scary "assault weapons."

[armoredman]

Perhaps that would show the world that their arguments against our rights aren't that important, that the right is so clear we don't need extensive hearings over the issue...yes, grasping at straws, but I am not in Cali so I at least have straws I can grasp!

[Live Life]

Adding to AW/Magazine Ban updates - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461637#msg1461637

Kostas Moros: ... per curiam ... For some reason I keep feeling like they are going to go that route

A short majority opinion (4 votes) resolving the petition without arguments. Caetano in 2016 was decided per curiam.

... this SHOULD be decided by a per curiam because the issue is simple - Heller already said government can't ban commonly owned firearms. They could give a short opinion saying as much and reversing the 4th circuit.

Perhaps that would show the world that their arguments against our rights aren't that important, that the right is so clear we don't need extensive hearings over the issue

Caetano per curiam after multiple conferences - https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/14-10078.htm

Title:    Jaime Caetano, Petitioner v. Massachusetts
Docketed:   June 4, 2015
Lower Ct:   Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
 
  Case Nos.:   (SJC-11718)
  Decision Date:   March 2, 2015

~~~Date~~~    ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 1 2015   Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 6, 2015)
Jun 22 2015   Waiver of right of respondent Massachusetts to respond filed.
Jul 2 2015   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 28, 2015.
Jul 13 2015   Response Requested . (Due August 12, 2015)
Aug 10 2015   Order extending time to file response to petition to and including October 13, 2015.
Aug 11 2015   Brief amicus curiae of Arming Women Against Rape & Endangerment filed.
Aug 12 2015   Brief amicus curiae of Commonwealth Second Amendment filed.
Oct 13 2015   Brief of respondent Massachusetts in opposition filed.
Oct 27 2015   Reply of petitioner Jaime Caetano filed.
Oct 29 2015   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 13, 2015.
Nov 16 2015   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of November 24, 2015.
Nov 30 2015   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 4, 2015.
Dec 7 2015   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 11, 2015.
Dec 8 2015   Record Requested .
Dec 14 2015   Record received from the Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1 envelope).
Dec 28 2015   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 8, 2016.
Jan 11 2016   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 15, 2016.
Jan 19 2016   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 22, 2016.
Feb 8 2016   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 19, 2016.
Feb 29 2016   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 4, 2016.
Mar 14 2016   DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 18, 2016.
Mar 21 2016   Motion to proceed in forma pauperis and petition for a writ of certiorari GRANTED. Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion). Justice Alito, concurring in the judgment. (Detached opinion).
Apr 22 2016   MANDATE ISSUED
Apr 22 2016   JUDGMENT ISSUED
Jun 23 2016   Record from The Supreme Judicial Court, Commonwealth of Massachusetts has been returned.

[Live Life]

Adding to AW/Magazine Ban updates - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461712#msg1461712

https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461712#msg1461712

B&L Productions v Newsom (CA gun show on state property) - https://www.saf.org/bl-productions-v-newsom/

SUPREME COURT DISTRIBUTES THIRD SAF CASE FOR CONFERENCE - https://www.saf.org/supreme-court-distributes-third-saf-case-for-conference/

The U.S. Supreme Court has distributed a third Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) case, B&L Productions v. Newsom, for conference on Friday, Jan. 24.

Mark Smith discuss January 24th may be the last conference date for Supreme Court to decide whether they will review any 2A cases this term.  Perhaps as Kostas Moros mentioned in previous post, Snope/Ocean State Tactical AW/magazine ban cases could be reviewed by per curiam? - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461712#msg1461712

A short majority opinion (4 votes) resolving the petition without arguments. Caetano in 2016 was decided per curiam.

SCOTUS NEWS: HUGE BLOW FOR 2A INCOMING… The Supreme Court just issued a new cert order list, but no 2A case appeared on it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q3XUgbIJE8

- On Friday late afternoon, the US Supreme Court issued a miscellaneous order list which granted cert in five cases ... none ... Second Amendment and none of which are Snope/Ocean State Tactical
- We remain in a holding pattern ... I would say if you're a betting person ... odds of us getting a cert grant for this term has ... substantially reduced
- It doesn't mean it's game over ... there is one additional conference on the 24th
- It is quite possible to see them relisted twice ... Bruen was relisted multiple times
- We are not dead in the water yet there's a lot of other possibilities
- There could be a summary disposition in our favor ... I think that's unlikely but possible
- There could be a decision by this court that they want to push these cases into next term because they want to take additional time to get them right and they don't want to rush the cases between now and the end of June that's also a possibility
- Certainly it is not a good look.  It is not good a good indication in favor of the Second Amendment the fact that they granted cert in five cases late in the day Friday and none of those cases touches fingers with the Second Amendment
- So we could be looking at a situation where the Supreme Court is going to deny cert and one or both of Snope and Ocean State Tactical and someone could be taking the time to write a dissent which has happened before
- Justice Thomas or justice Alito ... even justice Gorsuch, maybe even justice Kavanaugh could be writing a dissent saying we should be hearing these cases, dealing with commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, semi-automatic rifles but again at this point, it's really speculation on my part
- There are other things that can happen here and a lot of good stuff going on in the Second Amendment community generally speaking regardless of what happens with these cases
- But we really do want the Supreme Court to take Snope and Ocean State Tactical and resolve the commonly owned firearm bans ... as soon as possible

[Live Life]

Adding to Efforts to abolish/eliminate ATF - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461452#msg1461452

Rep. Cloud and Sen. Risch Introduce Bill to Block Federal Gun Registry - https://cloud.house.gov/posts/release-rep-cloud-and-sen-risch-introduce-bill-to-block-federal-gun-registry

WASHINGTON—Congressman Michael Cloud (TX-27) and Senator Jim Risch (R-ID) today reintroduced the No REGISTRY Rights Act, legislation prohibiting the federal government from creating a federal firearms registry. This reintroduction builds on Congressman Cloud’s longstanding leadership in the fight to defend Second Amendment rights and address the ATF’s overreach.

Congressman Cloud has consistently led efforts in Congress to hold the ATF accountable, including supporting appropriations measures to defund the agency’s abusive practices. His work was instrumental in uncovering that the ATF’s Out-of-Business Records Imaging System (OBRIS) holds more than 920 million firearm transaction records, a figure that shocked gun owners nationwide. A subsequent report by Gun Owners of America revealed how the ATF’s database could be exploited to create a door-to-door confiscation list, further underscoring the danger posed by the current system.

Under current law, Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) must transfer their firearm transaction records to the ATF upon closing their business. These records are stored indefinitely in the OBRIS database, laying the groundwork for a federal gun registry. In 2022, the Biden Administration finalized a rule requiring FFLs to retain records permanently, overturning decades of policy that allowed these records to be destroyed after 20 years. This policy, combined with the ATF’s “zero-tolerance” enforcement strategy—which punishes even minor paperwork errors—has forced many small businesses to close, further expanding the database.

The No REGISTRY Rights Act directly addresses these issues by:

Requiring the ATF to delete all existing firearm transaction records, dismantling the current database.
Allowing FFLs to destroy transaction records when they go out of business, preventing further accumulation by the ATF.

Prohibiting any federal agency from creating or maintaining a firearms registry in the future.
Congressman Cloud stated, “The Second Amendment is a cornerstone of individual liberty, and no administration—Republican or Democrat—should have the ability to compile a list of law-abiding gun owners. The Biden Administration’s backdoor attempts to create a federal firearms registry are a clear threat to Americans’ privacy and constitutional freedoms. The No REGISTRY Rights Act will dismantle the ATF’s existing database and ensure such a registry can never be implemented.”

Senator Risch stated, “The ATF’s excessive overreach has gone unchecked for too long. Idaho’s law-abiding gun owners should not be subject to an already illegal federal firearms registry. The Second Amendment is not conditional to a list of guns in circulation and their owners. All law-abiding Americans have the undeniable right to keep and bear arms. My No Registry Rights Act will safeguard this essential liberty for generations to come.”

Hunter King, Director of Political Affairs for National Association for Gun Rights stated,“ATF’s hoarding of nearly a billion gun records is a blatant violation of the law and a direct threat to Americans’ privacy. This is nothing short of an illegal power grab to create a federal gun registry. The No REGISTRY Rights Act will put a stop to this overreach and protect the Second Amendment from government abuse.”

Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs, Gun Owners of America stated, “Thanks to Congressman Cloud’s work, gun owners learned that ATF is maintaining a registry of more than 920,664,765 records. A subsequent GOA report uncovered the dangerous search functionality of this database which could be used to generate a door-to-door gun confiscation list. ATF is in clear violation of the federal ban on gun registration, so this illegal registry must be destroyed. We are proud to support the No REGISTRY Rights Act and urge this Congress and the President to swiftly deal with this existential threat to our Second Amendment rights.”

Groups Supporting: Gun Owners of America (GOA), National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), National Rifle Association (NRA)

Cosponsors: Sen. Crapo, Sen. Daines, Sen. Lummis, Sen. Marshall, Sen. Mullin, Sen. Ricketts, Sen. Sheehy, Rep. Bean, Rep. Bost, Rep. Cline, Rep. Clyde, Rep. Crenshaw, Rep. Davidson, Rep. DesJarlais, Rep. Donalds, Rep. Dunn, Rep. Fallon, Rep. Gooden, Rep. Green, Rep. Grothman, Rep. Hageman, Rep. Harshbarger, Rep. Harris, Rep. Higgins, Rep. Hudson, Rep. Johnson, Rep. LaMalfa, Rep. Luna, Rep. Mann, Rep. Massie, Rep. Moore (AL), Rep. Moore (WV), Rep. Nehls, Rep. Ogles, Rep. Rose, Rep. Roy, Rep. Rulli, Rep. Rutherford, Rep. Self, Rep. Sessions, Rep. Strong, Rep. Tenney, Rep. Thompson, Rep. Timmons, and Rep. Weber.

[Live Life]

Adding to Repeal the NFA to remove suppressors from NFA - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461452#msg1461452

FPC attorney Anthony Miranda break down a critical suppressor and NFA bill introduced by Congress - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cnPDeZ9r6s

- Congress has introduced a new bill that would remove suppressors from the NFA, eliminate all the federal restrictions/regulations including tax and registration
- This renewed effort hopes to leverage the conservative majority in Congress, both House and Senate along with Trump being the president to finally deregulate suppressors and get this effort passed through Congress and eventually sign into law
- The bill ... Hearing Protection Act ... was reintroduced by Congressman Klein out of Virginia and ... was introduced before but unfortunately with Democrats in control of Congress and of course with President Biden ... there was no way that a bill like this would ever pass
- However, now the hope is ... we can get ... this bill ... passed ... Bill is supported by 39 co-signers within the House
- What does the Hearing Protection Act state and what does it do?
- It changes some of the federal language in the laws and statute to where tax, registration and possession and all of those transportation restrictions under federal laws ... will in fact no longer be enforced
- Essentially all restrictions would be removed ... and ... be treated just as any kind of other firearm so the process you would go to get a firearm would be almost identical ... to get a suppressor
- Bill states that the section of law is going to be amended to add and include the following:

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a law of a state or political subdivision of a state that imposes a tax other than generally applicable sales or use tax on making, transferring, using, possessing or transporting a firearm silencer in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or imposing a marking, recordkeeping or registration requirement with respect to such a firearm silencer shall have no force or effect

- Also very important there in that language is the fact that it's also going to remove those federal restrictions but also any state limitations so states like California who have restrictions on suppressors who have a statewide ban ... would also impact those state laws
- Keep in mind that states like California that ban suppressors and other types of NFA items ... but if the NFA itself is changed at its foundation to where it no longer covers suppressors, well then the foundation of these state laws is pretty much shattered
- Again, they are targeting NFA items but if suppressors are removed from the NFA and you no longer have the taxation, registration and it just generally doesn't apply to those items, well then those state bans would also go out the door
-The bill also goes on to state that the Attorney General will have one year from the enactment of the bill to destroy all registration records of suppressors
- The bill states that no later than 365 days after the date of enactment of this act, the Attorney General shall destroy any registration of the silencers maintained in the national firearms registration and transfer record, any application to transfer that identifies the transferee of the silencer and any application that identifies the maker of a silencer
- The terms firearm silencer or firearm muffler mean any device for silencing, muffling or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, so that means almost anything that you think of as a traditional suppressor would fall under this bill
- The bill also states that it will strike out various paragraphs of the federal laws and also modify some of the serialization and marking requirements
- Bill would also clarify the definition of a suppressor ... ensuring that components like mounts, baffles and endcaps don't suddenly get classified as standalone suppressors or silencers and that's important because what we've seen happen and develop over the last few years is the ATF has tried to expand the definition of what a suppressor is to regulate more items
- They've now said that parts or baffles or tubes and all these things ... could be considered a silencer or suppressor ... So this bill would say no, that is not the case
- Congressman Klein stated in his press release ... that Americans ... should be able to do so safely and legally without facing burdensome government regulations the Hearing Protection Act will reclassify suppressors making it easier for law-abiding gun owners to protect their hearing while enjoying recreational activities.  It's time to ensure that our Second Amendment rights are upheld allowing responsible citizens to enjoy their freedoms without unnecessary obstacles
- Bill is also heavily supported by a ton of other organizations ... Contact your representatives, let them know you're in support of the Hearing Protection Act so we can get more momentum behind this bill

[dogmush]

Perhaps they could use "lawful purposes" instead?

I don't like that.  Self defense isn't considered lawful to some people. 

If someone does a crime with a gun, convict them of the crime.  No need to add charges due to possession of a gun.  That is just used as an excuse because idiots in the justice system don't want to give out tougher sentences. 

I'm not willing to concede that the ATF has the authority to ban otherwise legal, constitutionally protect3d items just because they are built overseas.  If a gun configuration is legal to build in the US you should be able to import it.

I know that's a long shot somewhere between "drop silencers from the NFA" and "abolish the ATF" on odds, but that would be my goal.

[Live Life]

This is some great news update to Efforts to abolish/eliminate ATF and Repeal the NFA/Remove suppressor from NFA - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1461724#msg1461724

National Association for Gun Rights (Video at Link) - https://x.com/NatlGunRights/status/1880662184776421839

Our Board Chairman, Chief Legal Counsel, and Day One Founder, David Warrington has been appointed to serve as White House Counsel and Assistant to President Donald J. Trump.

This is some of the most impactful news in the HISTORY of the National Association for Gun Rights.

This is what NAGR aimed to work on with 119th Congress and as President Trump's Assistant and White House Counsel, constitutional lawyer David Warrington will have direct access to Trump's ears as he meets with members of Congress 👍👍👍 - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1459279#msg1459279

The National Association for Gun Rights announced its plan to restore gun rights across the nation and reverse gun control in the 119th Congress - https://gunrights.org/nagr-announces-the-program-for-freedom-to-make-america-armed-again/

Program For Freedom - A Pro-Gun Agenda for the 119th Congress - https://gunrights.org/make-america-armed-again/

As Republicans took back control of the White House and the U.S. Senate, while also retaining their majority in the House, NAGR realizes this is a “once-in-a-generation” opportunity to advance gun rights.

That’s why they introduced the Program for Freedom to “Make America Armed Again".

The Program for Freedom agenda includes a carefully curated offensive battle plan to call on lawmakers to pass a National Constitutional Carry bill, completely deregulate firearm suppressors, undo Joe Biden’s gun control executive actions, and so much more.

You can read more about the NAGR’s Program for Freedom to “Make America Armed Again” here

Program For Freedom - A Pro-Gun Agenda for the 119th Congress - https://gunrights.org/make-america-armed-again/

Pass National Constitutional Carry - Sponsored by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), the National Constitutional Carry Act (H.R. 9534 /118th Cong.) seeks to extend the right of all law-abiding Americans to legally carry a firearm in all fifty states. Currently, twenty-nine states have similar laws in place. This bill is the only form of “National Reciprocity” that would fully restore the right to carry for all Americans.

Pass the SHUSH Act to Deregulate Suppressors - The “Silencers Help Us Save Hearing Act” (S.4825, 118th Cong.) proposes to deregulate suppressors at the federal level, removing them from restrictions under the NFA and NICS system. It’s well past time to lift regulations on this common firearm safety device.

Abolish the ATF - The idea of abolishing the ATF is not new; it was once proposed over a decade ago by former Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI). Established initially as a taxing authority within the Department of the Treasury, the ATF’s mission has expanded over the years to align with the agenda of gun control advocates.

President Trump and Congress can start right now by:
- Firing Anti-Gun ATF Director Steve Dettelbach on day one, and;
- Reducing the ATF’s budget to Pre-Obama Levels — cut at least $1 Billion (50%) for FY25.

Overturn / Defund Biden’s Executive Gun Controls - The Biden Administration has weaponized the DOJ and ATF to undermine the Second Amendment rights of all Americans. The incoming administration and Congress must act immediately, using every available tool — including executive actions, budgetary control, legislation, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Congressional Review Act — to:

- Repeal the ATF’s “Engaged in the Business” Rule (Final Rule 2022R-17F). This rule, a clear end-run around Congress, attempts to impose universal gun registration because the Biden Administration lacked the votes to pass it legislatively.

- Rescind the ATF’s bans on homemade firearms, pistol braces, and forced-reset triggers. Federal courts have repeatedly ruled that the ATF overstepped its authority with these arbitrary bans, which can no longer stand now that the Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron Defense. This includes ATF final rules 2021R-05F, 2021R-08F, 2018R–22F, and the ATF’s letter dated 3/22/22. Congress should repeal these bans and pass bills like the PISTOL Act (H.R.381, 118th Cong.) to prevent similar overreach in the future.

- Eliminate Biden’s Office of Gun Violence Prevention and reinstate the Dicky Amendment. The country does not need another taxpayer-funded gun control think tank. The Trump Administration should abolish it immediately, and Congress should reinstate the prohibition on using federal funds to promote gun control.

- Direct the Justice Department not to defend any gun control law or regulation in court. The executive branch must respect the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling by instructing the DOJ and U.S. Attorneys not to defend any law, rule, or policy that contradicts the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment.

End Federal “Red Flag” Gun Confiscation Support - The federal government has no business funding gun confiscation schemes that trample on due process and the Second Amendment. “Red Flag” laws are a dangerous infringement that empowers the government to seize firearms without proper legal proceedings. Congress must act now to cut off any federal support for these unconstitutional programs.

- Repeal the Red Flag Justice Assistance Grants authorized under the “Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.” Taxpayer dollars should not fund states that violate Americans’ rights.

- Pass the Federal Agent Responsibility Act (H.R.1243, 118th Cong.) to hold federal agents accountable and prevent them from participating in these unconstitutional gun grabs.

Destroy the ATF’s Illegal Gun Registries - The ATF has overstepped its bounds, blatantly ignoring federal law to build a massive gun registry that threatens the privacy and rights of law-abiding Americans. Congress must take immediate action to dismantle these illegal databases and put an end to the ATF’s attempts to monitor lawful gun ownership.

- In 2022, the ATF admitted it maintains a database containing 920,664,765 firearm purchase records — both digital and hard copies of transactions. This is a clear violation of federal law, and these records must be destroyed to protect Americans from unconstitutional surveillance.

- End multi-gun purchase reporting. Following the disastrous “Operation Fast and Furious,” the ATF imposed an illegal rule requiring FFLs, manufacturers, and importers in just four states to report lawful multiple-gun sales to the same person. This backdoor gun registry lacks statutory authority and must be repealed to stop the ATF’s encroachment on the Second Amendment.

End Unconstitutional Name Dumps into the NICS “Prohibited Persons” List - For too long, the rights of veterans and law-abiding Americans have been stripped away without due process based on bureaucratic decisions and unjust reporting practices. It’s time to end this unconstitutional overreach and restore gun rights to those who have been wrongfully placed on the NICS list.

- Restore gun rights to veterans and others who were unjustly added to the NICS indices by the VA or other non-judicial agencies without due process. Being labeled a “prohibited person” without ever facing a court of law is a gross violation of their rights.

- Pass the Protecting Gun Rights and Due Process Act (S. 2802 / 114th Cong. & H.R.1258 / 118th Cong.) to ensure that no one is placed on a federal “no guns” list without a proper judicial process. The authority to remove Second Amendment rights should lie solely with the courts, not with unelected boards, commissions, or any other non-judicial entities.

Repeal the “Sporting Purpose” Clause and Firearm Import Bans - The “sporting purpose” clause in the Gun Control Act of 1968 imposes an arbitrary test on the Second Amendment that has no basis in the Constitution and contradicts the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. This clause was first exploited in 1989 to ban the importation of lawful firearms. Since then, the ATF has repeatedly used it as a loophole to block the imports of semi-automatic rifles and components like barrels — all without Congressional approval.

Repeal the Federal Gun Tax - Targeted taxes on firearms and ammunition are nothing less than a modern-day poll tax on Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights. The Pittman-Robertson Act’s 11% excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment unfairly singles out lawful gun owners and is a blatant infringement on our rights. Such taxes, which don’t apply to other commodities, are unconstitutional and must be repealed immediately. Americans should not have to pay extra to exercise their fundamental right to own any weapon they please.

Repeal the NFA of 1934, GCA of 1968, and Hughes Amendment of 1989 - The Supreme Court’s Bruen decision made it clear: any gun control must align with the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment as it was understood at the time of our nation’s founding. 20th-century gun control laws fail that test and have no place in America. It’s time to correct these unconstitutional mistakes—the National Firearms Act, Gun Control Act, and Hughes Amendment—to restore and preserve the Second Amendment in its fullest form for future generations. Conservatives must roll back these infringements and reaffirm that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed in the 21st Century.