Category: Anti-Gun Nannies

A lot of the time, politics is all about action:  doing things that will make a difference, one hopes with a positive or good outcome.

But a positive or good outcome can also come from doing nothing, as Jenny Sensiba points out:

ATF just took a big hit in federal court. U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix has ruled in Jensen v. ATF that the government can no longer enforce the National Firearms Act registry for things like suppressors and short-barreled rifles.

The legal logic is pretty straightforward, even in a world where case law often treats the Second Amendment like a second-class right. Last year, Congress zeroed out the $200 transfer tax in the One Big Beautiful Bill. Back in 1937, the Supreme Court only allowed the National Firearms Act to exist because it was a tax framework, barely keeping it within the theoretical powers of Congress.

With the tax now gone, the constitutional justification that anti-gun courts have had for fingerprinting you and making you wait months for a piece of paper is no longer there, leaving the court with no choice but to rule the NFA unconstitutional.

Don’t go out and assemble that SBR yet, though. Judge Hendrix put a seven-day hold on his ruling so the Department of Justice can appeal. And the ruling will only apply to the plaintiffs and their members.

But, here’s the part you might not know: The DOJ doesn’t actually have to defend the NFA. They’re under no obligation at all to appeal the ruling.

And as Sensiba points out:

Sure, career government lawyers usually file appeals automatically to defend federal laws. They see it as their job. But, the DOJ is part of the executive branch, and President Trump is the guy at the top. He’s the one who signed the One Big Beautiful Bill into law that zeroed out the tax in the first place. Just as President Obama chose to have his DOJ decline to defend laws banning gay marriage, Trump can just as easily leave the NFA out in the legal cold and let it starve to death.

All it takes is one phone call to the [now confirmed] Attorney General telling the DOJ to stand down and decline to appeal.

With this satisfactory outcome:

In a week, if you’re a member or customer of one of the plaintiffs, you can order a suppressor or build that SBR or SBS. In two months, the ruling will become permanent and future administrations can’t appeal.

I guess now we’ll see whether DJT actually does believe in the Second Amendment — part of that pesky Constitution thing he swore to uphold and defend, twice.  Just one email (a phone call doesn’t cut it) to the DoJ to say:  “Stand back and do nothing.”  (One thought:  if our new USAG is the man Trump has suggested he is, he wouldn’t need any assistance from POTUS — that would be an even better outcome.)

Of course, there’s going to be weeping and wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments from the Usual Suspects in the Gun Control Industry.  But hell, every time Trump does anything, there’s weeping and wailing, gnashing of teeth and rending of garments from some bunch of Lefties or other — so why should this be any different?

It’s time to get the “F” out of the ATF.

It is a well-known fact of sales and advertising is that if you want to create demand for a product, you show it, extol its features and wonders, and then say, “…but you can’t have it.”

I have a similar reaction to a product when someone might want to prevent me from owning it:  I get one.

Longtime Readers will be only too familiar with my attitude towards the AR-15 poodleshooter and its varmint ammo — the executive summary would be that I despise the frigging things.

However, the more that the anti-gun brigade wants to ban them as eeeevil assault rifles (“only the military”, “designed not to hunt but to kill humans” etc. etc. etc.), the more I think that every American citizen should own one (or more, as the urge takes).

Which is a long way of saying that I am really, really glad that I now have one:  not because of any love I may have for the thing, but because now that I own one, I’m never going to give it up to any government agency, no matter what laws or restrictions the government may pass to make them illegal.

Were the Nanny Hoplophobe Set not so keen on banning them, I wouldn’t own one in a month of Sundays, because let’s just say that I might happen to have alternatives that I would consider far more effective in the AR-15’s purpose.

But regardless, I’m glad that I have a poodleshooter… simply because some asshole doesn’t want me to own one.

And it appears that as many as 15 million Americans feel the same way that I do — and very many likely for the same reason.

So while news items like this are very welcome, we sure as hell don’t need to have some super-lawyers (e.g. the USSC) explain the Second Amendment to us.  We know what it means, regardless of what they think or how carefully they may parse penumbral meanings out of the Constitution.

As for the would-be gun-banning types:  FOAD.