Quotes of the Day
The NFA is nothing more than a tax scheme which has imposed an unconstitutional burden on Americans since 1934. The registration of these items was only justified as the means to ensure taxes on them had been paid. With the One Big, Beautiful Bill zeroing out the tax for silencers and short barreled firearms, the registration scheme serves no other purpose than to create an unlawful barrier to keep people from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Our intention with this new lawsuit is to completely remove these barriers.
Adam Kraut
SAF Executive DirectorSAF has been fighting for more than 50 years to remove unnecessary burdens to our constitutional freedoms, and we welcome the opportunity to fight for the further dismantling of the NFA in court. The reforms in the One Big, Beautiful Bill represent the biggest blow to the NFA since its inception, and we fully support its complete repeal. Just like we’ve done for more than five decades, SAF will continue to fight so all Americans can have the freedom to exercise their Second Amendment rights for generations to come.
Alan M. Gottlieb
SAF founder and Executive Vice President
July 3, 2025
SAF ISSUES JOINT STATEMENT ON NFA REGISTRATION CHALLENGE – Second Amendment Foundation
This is historic.
Celebrate and then do what you can to continue the fight for the freedom promised by the 2nd Amendment. I, with the help of my employer, donate thousands of dollars each year to FPC and SAF.
A lot of anti-gun laws, going way back, were constructed to prevent gun ownership except by the rich. That of course goes all the way back to British practice, where (as quoted by St. George Tucker quoting Blackstone) the right to bear arms was restricted to those “suitable to their condition and degree”. In other words, just like in US left-wing jurisdictions, you could only be armed if you were part of the “aristocracy of pull”.
Can’t SAF and CCRKBA find a pro-gun district court judge somewhere to issue and injunction and stop enforcement of NFA? Win-win – either enforcement is halted, or the libs go nuts to stop nationwide injunctions by rogue judges.
If conservative, pro-gun judges were willing to defy SCOTUS precedents and issue nationwide injunctions from their District-level benches, then yes, SAF and CCRKBA could do that.
But so far it’s only Democrat-appointed judges who are willing to overstep their authority and spit in SCOTUS’ faces.
The NFA was challenged on its Constitutionality and the SCOTUS of the time upheld it. Under dubious circumstances, for sure, but SCOTUS nevertheless upheld it. It will be much harder to find a conservative judge willing to rule against precedent than it would be to find a Leftist judge willing to do it.
Me, I’m just waiting — popcorn in hand — for a Leftist District-level judge to issue a nationwide injunction, not on a policy, rule, or Executive Order, but on a SCOTUS ruling itself. (Imagine: A rogue Second Circuit judge issues an injunction against Heller or Bruen, declaring these rulings unconstitutional.)
Given the level of defiance we’ve seen in some of the Districts recently, it’s not much of a stretch.
The problem is that to the court, registration isn’t a problem. And doesn’t bar one from bearing arms.
Just like a background check.
We know what the government/communists will do with that information when given the chance. But we have little evidence that the court will except. Were just being paranoid to them.
And indeed, the left could point to the fact that almost no one, having gone through the background check and paid the tax. Has ever committed a crime with that registered firearm in almost a 100 years.
From a government stand-point, that is probably the most outstanding result they have ever had with any program, ever.
Almost a total success.
Why would the court want to abandon the most successful safety program the government ever created?
If an attack on the NFA is to be a true success, it has to be on the grounds of the 2A’s “shall not be infringed”.
Meaning it’s not up to government to decide wither to tax, register, or both. Or that without the one, you don’t get the other. And vice, versa.
Think of it this way.
The reality of the case is that it’s not up to the government what we use to stop their tyranny. And we don’t ask governments permission to do so.
That argument can only be won by the direct wording of the second amendment.
People have used machine guns and suppressors to commit lots of crimes.
It is just those people willing to go through the hassle of the NFA requirements that are not committing crimes.
In other words, NFA did not make society safer. It does work as a filter to find law-abiding people.
“In other words, NFA did not make society safer. (You and I/everyone with a brain knows this.) It does work as a filter to find law-abiding people.”
Which is the excuse used by tyrants the world over. And one of the biggest argument the communist have against us.
That only the law abiding should own guns.
And that society/government should have a mechanism for sorting out criminals from good guys.
They have been using that same argument (very successfully I might add), for years now.
Now were going to make their case for them in open court? On the house and senate floors? With an auto-pen to top it off?
2A strips all power from the government in the case of bearable arms.
That’s what we should fight on.
And if we lose in the courts over that fight? Then we know the level of tyranny were dealing with.
From a legal viewpoint, “Shall not be infringed!”
From a practical standpoint, “Bad guys don’t bother to go through the process. Good guys are impeded by the process. The net effect is infringement with no benefits to society.”