Legal Trump Administration Lets Key Gun Law Lapse Following Court Ruling

Trump Administration Lets Key Gun Law Lapse Following Court Ruling

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/13/us/politics/national-firearms-act-gun-control-doj.html

Or

https://archive.is/20260813125059/https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/13/us/politics/national-firearms-act-gun-control-doj.html

 

[Jimi Jah]

Would now be a good time to tell you about the 10th amendment?

The Commerce Clause ended the 10th amendment for all legal purposes.

 

[MK6M9]

You made a claim, prove it. Show where Bonta has ever said he would not comply with a scotus ruling.

my god. go read his recent releases to the public (shrugs)

 

[JackRydden224]

Each win brings us one step closer and we are getting a lot of key 2A wins post Bruen. If SCOTUS can step in and resolve the circuit split caused by the U.S. v Comeaux ruling then we are in the final stretches.

I'm smoking so much Hopium that I'm starting to look at muzzle devices that can host a can but my wallet is not ready.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

my god. go read his recent releases to the public (shrugs)

I gave you one direct quote from Bonta after Bruen showing you he was acknowledging and complying with the ruling. It’s funny you can’t give me one that says he will ignore future scotus rulings. And no, saying we “will fight for our gun laws because they save lives”, isn’t the same thing. Even CT and IL have already said as much, but they meant with their arguments to the scotus. And I’m sure CA will submit a brief to the Supreme Court about Viramontes/Grant.

No state AG would ever be stupid enough to say they would just ignore the scotus just because they don’t like a ruling. All I asked is for one. Can you even supply one?

 

[MK6M9]

I gave you one direct quote from Bonta after Bruen showing you he was acknowledging and complying with the ruling. It’s funny you can’t give me one that says he will ignore future scotus rulings. And no, saying we “will fight for our gun laws because they save lives”, isn’t the same thing. Even CT and IL have already said as much, but they meant with their arguments to the scotus. And I’m sure CA will submit a brief to the Supreme Court about Viramontes/Grant.

No state AG would ever be stupid enough to say they would just ignore the scotus just because they don’t like a ruling. All I asked is for one. Can you even supply one?

I never was referring to your specific SCOTUS ruling. pay attention here and use your comprehension skills. bonta literally released a letter to the public about a month ago or so stating what they will comply with and what they will not. it is that simple. go read it. (shrugs) i am not going to sit here and play your want-to-be intellectual game, it is just a bunch of dunn and kruger that you are doing. now go read this letter and move on already

 

[MK6M9]

I gave you one direct quote from Bonta after Bruen showing you he was acknowledging and complying with the ruling. It’s funny you can’t give me one that says he will ignore future scotus rulings. And no, saying we “will fight for our gun laws because they save lives”, isn’t the same thing. Even CT and IL have already said as much, but they meant with their arguments to the scotus. And I’m sure CA will submit a brief to the Supreme Court about Viramontes/Grant.

No state AG would ever be stupid enough to say they would just ignore the scotus just because they don’t like a ruling. All I asked is for one. Can you even supply one?

also on another thought, what has this bruen ' win' from 2022 done for us ? What can I do or purchase from that, that i could not before?

 

[MK6M9]

also on another thought, what has this bruen ' win' from 2022 done for us ? What can I do or purchase from that, that i could not before?

the funny part. just google " what has this bruen ' win' from 2022 done for us ? What can I do or purchase from that, that i could not before? " specifically and see how it has done much of nothing here in california. it is literally that simple (shrugs)

 

[MK6M9]

here is breun

" the legal standard for evaluating Second Amendment challenges changed. Courts no longer use modern balancing tests. Instead, the government must prove that a challenged gun law aligns with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation "

and nothing more

 

[MK6M9]

another very important part of bruen,

"The 2022 Bruen decision primarily expanded where you can legally carry a firearm rather than instantly introducing new types of weapons to commercial store shelves"

and nothing more

 

[MK6M9]

another part of bruen,

" The practical changes to your legal abilities and purchasing options depend strictly on the specific state where you reside"

and nothing more

 

[MK6M9]

What You Can Do Now (That You Couldn't Before)
The most immediate change applies to residents of previously "may-issue" states, including New York, California, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Hawaii. [1, 2, 3, 4]

• Obtain a Concealed Carry Permit without a "Special Need": States can no longer demand that you prove a "special need" or unique threat to your safety to get a concealed carry permit. If you pass standard background and safety checks, the state must issue the permit. [1, 2]
• Carry Firearms in More Public Spaces: The Supreme Court has actively struck down state attempts to declare entire metropolitan areas or standard commercial zones as presumptive "gun-free zones".

 

[MK6M9]

What You Can Purchase Now (State-Specific)
While federal law remains largely intact, lower courts applying Bruen have struck down specific state-level purchasing barriers: [1]

• Ammunition Without Point-of-Sale Background Checks (California): Federal courts struck down California's restrictive requirement that forced buyers to undergo a background check fee and system swipe every single time they bought ammunition. [1]
• Handguns as an 18-to-20-Year-Old (Certain States): In several jurisdictions, federal courts have ruled that age-based bans preventing adults under 21 from buying or carrying handguns lack historical precedent, opening up standard buying rights to 18–20-year-olds.

 

[MK6M9]

What You Still Cannot Do or Purchase
Bruen did not automatically legalize heavily regulated or banned items nationwide. The federal National Firearms Act (NFA) and remaining state bans are still enforced while lawsuits work their way up the courts: [1, 2, 3, 4]

• Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines: State bans on AR-15s and magazines holding over 10 rounds remain heavily disputed in courts. They are not universally available if your specific state bans them.
• Over-the-Counter NFA Items: You still cannot buy suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), or fully automatic firearms without going through the standard ATF Form 4 process, paying a $200 tax stamp, and waiting for federal approval. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

 

[MK6M9]

" To see exactly how this applies to your backyard, what state are you located in? I can tell you precisely what has changed regarding your local carry laws or specific buying restrictions. "

 

[treelogger]

The Commerce Clause ended the 10th amendment for all legal purposes.

Funny thing that we still argue over the dormant commerce clause. And that when a state regulates more than we like, we bemoan the fact that the fed don't have the gumption to step in. If your argument were correct, all state-level gun regulation would already be gone, yet it isn't.

 

[MK6M9]

it also took six years for anything to be decided on it because of the forever lawsuit game by design. (shrugs) and we still do not have anything to show for it. so in other words, almost 10 years of this and california still says i cannot carry without permission. so for another umpteenth time now, what win?

let me guess heller next?

 

[treelogger]

and california still says i cannot carry without permission

If you actually read Bruen, you'll find that the opinion explicitly says that a licensing regime can be constitutional, just not the one NY was running, which made getting a license de-facto impossible. Bruen shares that with Heller, which also says that some regulation can be OK, just not a complete de-facto ban on handguns at home.

But clearly you don't wish to read, or perhaps not to understand, Heller and Bruen, and instead want to live in a fantasy world. The number of posts here is quite astounding.

 

[MK6M9]

If you actually read Bruen, you'll find that the opinion explicitly says that a licensing regime can be constitutional, just not the one NY was running, which made getting a license de-facto impossible. Bruen shares that with Heller, which also says that some regulation can be OK, just not a complete de-facto ban on handguns at home.

But clearly you don't wish to read, or perhaps not to understand, Heller and Bruen, and instead want to live in a fantasy world. The number of posts here is quite astounding.

so you replied to my post to tell me that california says that i have to have permission to carry and then attempted your soft insults? i just want to make sure i undrstand correctly.
i also noticed you used the word 'opinion' instead of ' ruling .' strange.

 

[HibikiR]

If you actually read Bruen, you'll find that the opinion explicitly says that a licensing regime can be constitutional, just not the one NY was running, which made getting a license de-facto impossible. Bruen shares that with Heller, which also says that some regulation can be OK, just not a complete de-facto ban on handguns at home.

But clearly you don't wish to read, or perhaps not to understand, Heller and Bruen, and instead want to live in a fantasy world. The number of posts here is quite astounding.

Correction: "some regulation rooted in the text, history, and tradition from the founding of the United States can be OK". Democrat-led regulation is anything but rooted in that.

 

[treelogger]

Correction: "some regulation rooted in the text, history, and tradition from the founding of the United States can be OK". Democrat-led regulation is anything but rooted in that.

Sorry, logically incorrect. Bruen explicitly let the licensing regime in NY state stand. Which was, in your words, "democrat-led regulation". That pretty proves that state law mandating CCW licenses (as opposed to "constitutional carry") must be rooted in the text, history and tradition, as defined by Justice Thomas.