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

 

[john_marsten_1873]

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.

Not technically violating Bruen but not “enforcing” it either. But maybe that’s not the state’s responsibility?

LA County Sheriff's Department settles concealed carry lawsuit with US Department of Justice | abc7.com

The LA County Sheriff's Department agreed to a settlement with the DOJ and will speed up licensing for eligible Californians.

abc7.com

 

[Gawernator]

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

I live in CA so silencers are illegal here lmao. Did you realize this is CAguns

 

[Warpspeed]

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

US District Court rules - 60 days from the date of the original ruling. (FRAP 4 / 28 U.S.C. § 2107)

Parties have 60 days to file a notice of appeal after the entry of judgment if one of the parties is the United States, a federal agency, or a federal officer/employee sued in an official capacity

 

[CadeH]

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.

The prime example I see is Bruen allowed permit schemes if they didn't have "excessive fees", and cities like Glendale just made CCW permits $1000 on initial and $800 for renewals.

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

Scottsdale Gun Club, The Armory AZ, East Valley Tactical, Kombat Solutions are all doing only 4473s in AZ off the top of my head. I've seen more while scrolling reels on Instagram but I didn't save the posts. A few in Texas have popped up for me- Bauer Precision and Ray's Hardware, Top Gun Range, HTX Tactical, Munjac

 

[Gawernator]

The prime example I see is Bruen allowed permit schemes if they didn't have "excessive fees", and cities like Glendale just made CCW permits $1000 on initial and $800 for renewals.

Scottsdale Gun Club, The Armory AZ, off the top of my head. I've seen more while scrolling reels on Instagram but I didn't save the posts.

Don't forget Santa Clara County being like $1500

 

[CadeH]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2088792652162474122

 

[Jcwatchdog]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2088792652162474122

It would be nice, but the best he could do is direct them to maybe reinterpret some things, or maybe not enforce others, but the NFA wouldn’t go away or be ended without congress. And we know the chances of that.

 

[Warpspeed]

Are there any challenges currently working through the courts that apply to the Full Auto portion of the NFA ?

 

[CadeH]

It would be nice, but the best he could do is direct them to maybe reinterpret some things, or maybe not enforce others, but the NFA wouldn’t go away or be ended without congress. And we know the chances of that.

I am hoping that they are referring to Brown v ATF, which just had oral arguments on the 10th. That one is an actual second amendment based NFA challenge, unlike Silencer Shop v ATF which was on enumerated powers. Under Silencer Shop, if Congress reinstated the tax on SBRs/SBS/Supressors/AOWs the current judgement could be vacated as moot, which is why getting a 2A victory over the NFA would be huge. I don't know if they could abandon their defense in that lawsuit after oral arguments already took place, is this just them deciding not to appeal Silencer Shop?

 

[Jcwatchdog]

I am hoping that they are referring to Brown v ATF, which just had oral arguments on the 10th. That one is an actual second amendment based NFA challenge, unlike Silencer Shop v ATF which was on enumerated powers. Under Silencer Shop, if Congress reinstated the tax on SBRs/SBS/Supressors/AOWs the current judgement could be vacated as moot, which is why getting a 2A victory over the NFA would be huge. I don't know if they could abandon their defense in that lawsuit after oral arguments already took place, is this just them deciding not to appeal Silencer Shop?

Maybe it is that, because they can’t really just make the NFA go away. Of course, states and the federal government do ignore federal drug laws without them being repealed, so who knows.

 

[CadeH]

Maybe it is that, because they can’t really just make the NFA go away. Of course, states and the federal government do ignore federal drug laws without them being repealed, so who knows.

I imagine they are referring to abandoning the suppressor/sbr/sbs/aow portion of the NFA, while keeping MGs/DDs on it. If the former were entirely removed from the NFA then still be regulated by the GCA anyways, so same rules as our normal pistols/rifles/shotguns. Getting the NFA struck down on a constitutional basis would be huge for states like us though, because the NFA is less strict than our AWBs/mag bans and regulated very similar things. I don't really know if getting it declared unconstitutional at the district court level and then choosing not to appeal it is a very good idea in the long run though. Not nearly as wide reaching and influential in other cases at that level, I wish they were closer to the Supreme Court.

 

[Gawernator]

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

Multiple of my friends IRL posted on FB today their suppressors they bought and took home same day immediately, no special form

 

[Mfischer]

US District Court rules - 60 days from the date of the original ruling. (FRAP 4 / 28 U.S.C. § 2107)

Parties have 60 days to file a notice of appeal after the entry of judgment if one of the parties is the United States, a federal agency, or a federal officer/employee sued in an official capacity

Obviously nothing is set in stone before those 60 days expire. But the admin has made it clear they won’t be appealing. So I’m cautiously optimistic

 

[CadeH]

Obviously nothing is set in stone before those 60 days expire. But the admin has made it clear they won’t be appealing. So I’m cautiously optimistic

They have 60 days to appeal the decision, but appealing doesn't automatically result in a new stay. After they let the original stay expire it's a lot more unlikely that the appeals court will let the government change their mind and grant a new stay if they requested one too.

 

[Gawernator]

They have 60 days to appeal the decision, but appealing doesn't automatically result in a new stay. After they let the original stay expire it's a lot more unlikely that the appeals court will let the government change their mind and grant a new stay if they requested one too.

Current admin under Trump is pro gun and right wing. They aren’t appealing lol. No Kamala

 

[CadeH]

Current admin under Trump is pro gun and right wing. They aren’t appealing lol. No Kamala

I'd rather they appeal without requesting a stay and make a really ty argument to be honest, getting a decision at the Circuit or Supreme Court level matters a lot more in the judicial system than a district court decision.

 

[HibikiR]

One of the arguments regarding AR-15s is "Are they in common use for lawful purposes?"
They are, and that's one of the reasons we are so hopeful that SCOTUS will go our way next year.

With this ruling affecting half of the country essentially, throwing the "Are they in common use for lawful purposes?" on suppressors will soon mean something different compared to a couple of years back. This is the foundation of a much stronger challenge at a future Circuit or SCOTUS level anti-suppressor case some Democrat will be spearheading.