When the Supreme Court issues a ruling, there are ramifications. That includes cases still in the pipeline. After all, the decision might include something that the attorneys in another case can use to their advantage.
Such as how Bruen killed interest balancing, which meant that other attorneys needed to adjust their arguments to exclude interest-balancing and instead provide historical analogs.
Well, the Second Amendment Foundation is having to file a brief to adjust its own arguments in a challenge to the National Firearms Act.
From a press release:
The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed supplemental briefs in three ongoing National Firearms Act (NFA) cases considering the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent rulings.
Outlined in the briefs are how the High Court’s decisions in United States v. Hemani, Wolford v. Lopez and Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections & Public Safety impact SAF’s current NFA cases working their way through the lower courts. Based on the Landor ruling, SAF argues that Congress’ taxing power cannot be used to support the NFA since the tax for suppressors and short-barreled firearms was eliminated in the One Big Beautiful Bill. Eliminating that tax, therefore, no longer justifying Congress’ taxing power under the NFA. From both the Wolford and Hemani opinions, SAF highlights the Supreme Court’s ruling that the NFA’s regulation of suppressors and short-barreled firearms violates the Second Amendment.
“When the Supreme Court rightly ruled in favor of Landor, Wolford and Hemani, the precedent set had a direct impact on SAF’s ongoing NFA challenges,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “With those rulings in hand, we are now able to better explain to the courts exactly why the remaining registration scheme left in the NFA lacks constitutional authority and is a direct violation of Americans’ Second Amendment rights. We are hopeful these cases will move expeditiously and rightfully restore the full constitutional rights of gun owners across the nation.”
SAF itself is a named plaintiff in the NFA lawsuit Brown v. ATF and is also backing two additional challenges – Jensen v. ATF and Roberts v. ATF. All three cases seek the removal of the NFA’s remaining registration requirements since the $200 tax on the affected arms was eliminated last year.
“There is no doubt the Supreme Court’s rulings this past term have direct bearing on our current challenges to the NFA’s remaining registration scheme,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The relevant district courts should recognize the rulings for what they are – binding precedent that bolsters SAF’s arguments in these three cases. The One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the tax for suppressors and short-barreled firearms, and it’s now time to remove the registration burden so citizens can exercise their right to keep and bear arms without fear of being placed on some government list.”
The truth of the matter is that the NFA was sold to the American people and defended as a tax. The registry was supposedly nothing more than a list of people who had paid the tax on NFA items.
Since suppressors and short-barreled long guns are no longer subject to the NFA tax, they should no longer be required to be registered with the ATF. It’s a no-brainer in my book, though “no-brainer” is how far too many people go through life these days, and many of them don’t seem to see the connection.
Yet, when you look at the long history of guns in the United States, what you don’t see is a history of gun registration around the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification, nor when the 14th Amendment was ratified.
It seems to me that, on the face of things, the history, text, and tradition don’t support registration in the least. Shocking, I know, but here we are, and the NFA as a whole needs to go. I doubt that will happen, even if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the challenge, but a guy can dream.
In the meantime, this inane idea that we need to continue registering things like suppressors baffles me.
Luigi Mangione made a suppressor of his very own, put it on a gun that he made, and killed Brian Thompson with it. Allegedly.
He didn’t go through the NFA paperwork. He could have. He could have lawfully purchased both the handgun and the suppressor under federal law, though state law is different. He could have done it, but didn’t.
And people still think registering suppressors is some kind of deterrent to criminals.
It’s not just baffling, it’s insane.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
