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

 

[MK6M9]

the logic of all this is very simple.
if a persons is making laws and bills and they then go into appeals and stay orders and injunctions (because that is how it all is and all that goes on for at least half a decade) and then creates another law or bill to defend the one in lawsuits and he keeps doing it and it never ends; would the best logical scenario be to file yet another lawsuit against that guy for another umpteenth time that will be another forever lawsuit for another half decade or just remove that guy so we do not have to do this on a forever biases? this is my rant that you guys seem to have forgotten while responding to my post

 

[Jcwatchdog]

the logic of all this is very simple.
if a persons is making laws and bills and they then go into appeals and stay orders and injunctions (because that is how it all is and all that goes on for at least half a decade) and then creates another law or bill to defend the one in lawsuits and he keeps doing it and it never ends; would the best logical scenario be to file yet another lawsuit against that guy for another umpteenth time that will be another forever lawsuit for another half decade or just remove that guy so we do not have to do this on a forever biases? this is my rant that you guys seem to have forgotten while responding to my post

All I asked you to do was to back up your claim that Bonta said he was going to ignore what the scotus says. And instead you start flinging all sorts of things from Bruen, that you misinterpret because you’re probably using AI with a strangely worded question.

The lower courts have been disingenuous when applying Heller, McDonald, Bruen and everything else. The 9th circuit hasn’t been shy of their corruption regarding how many times they have en banc every pro gun control ruling (and overturning it) while denying en banc to any anti gun ruling (and letting it stand). The reason is, for example with Bruen, since it didn’t touch on hardware issues specifically, the 9th circuit could twist their ruling around it. When Viramontes is decided, they won’t be able to do that anymore. If the question presented is answered, and the answer is broad(which it would be hard not to be since the question is simple), the 9th circuit won’t be able to play their games anymore. This is a very targeted and specific question about hardware bans. Not a carry case. And yes, the lower courts should have found enough in those other decisions like Heller and Bruen to strike down AW bans also, but like I said, they weren’t being honest. This is more than likely the reason the scotus took this case when no one was thinking they would have. At least not now.

 

[HibikiR]

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.

No, Bruen explicitly struck down the Democrat "proper cause" license scheme. That pretty much proves that the Democrats got their text, history, and tradition wrong when they thought "proper cause" was ok. Republican states use "shall issue" or "constitutional carry", which must be rooted in the text, history, and tradition as defined by Justice Thomas.

 

[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?

You talk but say nothing of value. Lawsuits take time, all do. Things don’t change overnight, and sometimes take years.

You made a claim, prove it. Show where Bonta has ever said he would not comply with a scotus ruling. Appealing lower court rulings sure,he will do that every chance he gets. But the scotus is the end of the line. I’ll give you one of his statements after Bruen:

“the Attorney General now considers the ‘good cause’ requirements set forth in California Penal Code sections 26150(a)(2) and 26155(a)(2) to be unconstitutional and unenforceable.”

That was a direct result of the scotus ruling, and the “good cause” requirement pretty much banned CCWs being issued in places like San Francisco. We have more CCWs in California now than ever. The legislature then tried their Bruen response bills, but besides those being on shaky grounds because of Wolford, that wasn’t Bonta who unilaterally declared he was going to just not comply with Bruen.

So if you have any facts that show otherwise, please post them here. Not just the old woe is me, taking about past loses form 30 years ago, and saying a bunch of words without really saying anything.

are these not your post? is that not bruen's name and is that not you referencing the bruen ruling?

 

[Jcwatchdog]

are these not your post? is that not bruen's name and is that not you referencing the bruen ruling?

Yes, this original question presented in Bruen was:

“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”

The scotus then narrowed the question to:

“Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

And this was directly about showing a need to carry that was acceptable to the NY government. That was struck down in NY and subsequently made the CA requirement invalid also. It didn’t deal with hardware bans. Like I said some of that decision could have been used against hardware bans, but the 9th and some other circuits won’t do that. They want it to be specific to the actual case before it, at least when it comes to 2nd amendment cases. For abortion they can twist themselves into a pretzel to find any scrap that could show it’s a right that’s protected. Roe v Wade was all about that. I’m not sure how you think we’re losing when we’re winning. We went from 1 in 30, to unlimited and then back to 3 in 30 as of now. So going from 1 in 30 to 3 in 30 is a win. We have more handguns being added to the roster now. Before nothing new was added. That was a result of a lawsuit win. And these weren’t even scotus wins.

There are more CCWs in California than ever before in history, a direct result of Bruen. And now Viramontes/Grant will strike down AW bans nationwide. And yes there will be some stupid response bills, but every win builds on the last, and newer bills will be on shakier and shakier grounds. If you think about it, the scotus 2nd amendment decisions have been relatively recent and sparse in comparison to other issues.

 

[MK6M9]

Yes, this original question presented in Bruen was:

“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”

The scotus then narrowed the question to:

“Whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”

And this was directly about showing a need to carry that was acceptable to the NY government. That was struck down in NY and subsequently made the CA requirement invalid also. It didn’t deal with hardware bans. Like I said some of that decision could have been used against hardware bans, but the 9th and some other circuits won’t do that. They want it to be specific to the actual case before it, at least when it comes to 2nd amendment cases. For abortion they can twist themselves into a pretzel to find any scrap that could show it’s a right that’s protected. Roe v Wade was all about that. I’m not sure how you think we’re losing when we’re winning. We went from 1 in 30, to unlimited and then back to 3 in 30 as of now. So going from 1 in 30 to 3 in 30 is a win. We have more handguns being added to the roster now. Before nothing new was added. That was a result of a lawsuit win. And these weren’t even scotus wins.

There are more CCWs in California than ever before in history, a direct result of Bruen. And now Viramontes/Grant will strike down AW bans nationwide. And yes there will be some stupid response bills, but every win builds on the last, and newer bills will be on shakier and shakier grounds. If you think about it, the scotus 2nd amendment decisions have been relatively recent and sparse in comparison to other issues.

uh huh, okay. thank you

 

[Warpspeed]

The trump admin has said they won’t be appealing, at least according to a congressional rep

That doesn't change the statutory waiting period, IIRC

 

[HibikiR]

Future congressman Herrera's vid on it.

 

[HibikiR]

Updating the eForm system doesn't look like something the ATF would do if they had planned on using the 50-something days to appeal.

 

[treelogger]

Republican states use "shall issue" or "constitutional carry", which must be rooted in the text, history, and tradition as defined by Justice Thomas.

As do California and NY now. They clearly are not violating Bruen, or are you claiming that? And last I checked, those were heavily democratic states.

 

[HibikiR]

There's a difference between a Republican state going with Shall Issue or Constitutional Carry on their own accord and California/NY being dragged kicking and screaming by a NY government loss in a SCOTUS case where the Republican nominated justices ruled in favor of 2A and the 3 Democrat nominated justices dissented.

We both know that without Bruen the default for Democrats in CA/NY is May Issue/Proper Cause. They were forced to adopt more Republican-led CCW schemes, so I'm not giving them credit for something they couldn't do voluntarily since being forced doesn't fit the word "Democrat-led".

 

[Gawernator]

Updating the eForm system doesn't look like something the ATF would do if they had planned on using the 50-something days to appeal.

The current admin is pro gun and pro 2A we have nothing to worry about. Man if Kamala had won we would be so cooked lol. Oppressive regime

 

[Mfischer]

That doesn't change the statutory waiting period, IIRC

The state level 10 day waiting period? Or the 60 days the doj has to appeal the decision?

 

[Gawernator]

As do California and NY now. They clearly are not violating Bruen, or are you claiming that? And last I checked, those were heavily democratic states.

lol yeah after being forced to by republicans they allow shall issue

 

[mossy]

Im in central Florida. Cant find a single dealer willing to transfer suppressors on 4473's. Everyone is waiting on guidance from the ATF.

 

[HibikiR]

Might be better to work with Silencer Shop and their affiliates in Florida as they were one of the parties in the court case, so the protection extends to them, their customers, and members of the other parties like GOA. Hit up their website and try contacting them on how to get your suppressor in Florida.

 

[mossy]

Might be better to work with Silencer Shop and their affiliates in Florida as they were one of the parties in the court case, so the protection extends to them, their customers, and members of the other parties like GOA. Hit up their website and try contacting them on how to get your suppressor in Florida.

My dealer IS a silencer shop affiliate. They are waiting for the ATF to tell them what to do. All of them around here are saying the same thing.

 

[HibikiR]

Then speak directly to the to the source than the counter guy at your dealer since you're stuck in waiting. What else could you do besides wait more?

 

[Gawernator]

My dealer IS a silencer shop affiliate. They are waiting for the ATF to tell them what to do. All of them around here are saying the same thing.

Go with a different shop then.

 

[mossy]

Go with a different shop then.

Dosent really work when every Class III dealer i talk to says the same thing. "We are waiting for ATF to issue guidance" Do you have any dealers around you transferring on 4473's alone? Im genuinely curious if regular people are getting transfers done with only a 4473