The United States Department of Justice filed a response to a lawsuit brought by Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), Palmetto State Armory (PSA), the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC), Silencer Shop (SS), and B&T USA (B&T), challenging the constitutionality of regulating suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs).
Earlier this year, Congress passed President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). This reconciliation bill sought to remove suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs from the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) list. Unfortunately for gun owners, the Senate Parliamentarian, Democrat Elizabeth MacDonough, rejected the bill, believing it was not a tax. Republicans would modify the bill to reduce the tax cost to $0, while maintaining all other requirements, such as fingerprinting, passport photos, registration, and background checks.
The $0 tax spurred numerous lawsuits from gun rights advocates. A tax must have a revenue-generating purpose. A $0 tax stamp does not generate any revenue. Democrats argue that the NFA is not a tax and that the tax is just there to help enforce the NFA restrictions. The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) disagrees with these politicians’ view of the NFA. In Sonzinsky v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the NFA is primarily a tax, which is why it is constitutional.
Trump’s DOJ is hailed as the “most pro-gun DOJ ever,” but its response to the GOA lawsuit paints a different picture. The Justice Department took a more adversarial stance in the lawsuit, ignoring pleas from members of Congress such as Andrew Clyde. The DOJ is vigorously defending the NFA.
The DOJ claims that the NFA is still a tax, despite no revenue being collected. They say that, because it is still a tax in their view, the law is constitutional because the power is given to them through the Interstate Commerce Act. The DOJ also claims that the NFA is necessary because of the “concealability” of SBRs and SBSs. GOA argues that if all it took to regulate a firearm, then all handguns could be banned.
@AGPamBondi just made the argument for banning EVERY HANDGUN IN AMERICA. https://t.co/MNxLglGyPv pic.twitter.com/yIfCfxc6Qs
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) November 21, 2025
The DOJ also takes a page out of the playbook of anti-gun groups by calling short-barreled rifles and shotguns “weapons of war.” They argued that the NFA is needed to regulate these firearms because of their use by criminals. Even if that were the case, the Second Amendment does not have an exception for weapons of war.” Even the Supreme Court has acknowledged this fact. In United States v. Miller, SCOTUS said SBSs could not be banned because they were not a “weapon of war.”
Our sources in the DOJ have confirmed that Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi is well aware of this case and has signed off on the response. GOA also confirmed our source’s information. This defense of the NFA appears to be directly at odds with the President’s executive order on Second Amendment rights.
Gun Owners helped elect President Trump with the expectation that he would defend their right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. Now, many of those same voters are wondering if they were just given lip service.
Your Moral Right To Keep & Bear Firearms In The United States
Gun Lobby Files Amicus Brief Supporting Challenge to Vermont’s 72-Hour ‘Cooling Off’ Waiting Period
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
If an entity denies you what is undeniably yours, then they are AFRAID of you having it.
HLB
The NFA is unconstitutional to the 2A and is therefore illegal. I was told that it was going away, that congress had told Bondi to get that done. What part of, “Shall not be infringed” is difficult to understand? What part of “Any law that goes against the constitution is legal” is difficult to understand? Do we live in America where the constitution is the highest law of the land or do we live in china or russia or north korea?
Arm up and carry on
Pardon me, I’m just a little bit curious. The other day I found a quote: “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal Constitution.” — Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 113 (1943) The case involved Jehovah’s Witnesses who went door-to-door distributing religious literature. The city required them to buy a solicitor’s license. The Supreme Court struck the requirement down, holding that the government cannot force citizens to pay a fee, tax, or license charge in order to exercise a constitutional right—in this case, freedom of religion and freedom of the… Read more »
The Republican Party has turned it’s back on the largest voting block in this country, the 2nd Amendment voting block. Of the 17 members of my family that voted Republican in the last Presidential election, only 4 have declared for the Republican Party if the election were to take place right now. What a DROP OFF. Most of us continue to wait for VP Vance to convince Trump that voters are leaving in droves. The America Party is alive and growing stronger with every stab in the back. The DOJ continues to shoot holes in the Republicans boat. Sooner or… Read more »
This looks like more D.C. backroom horsetrading to me. Recall that Trump’s record indicates that, while he does support the 2A, his idea of the 2A is more limited than that of the founders of this country, as well as ours. Then, recall that several Democrat Senators suddenly reversed course, snubbing Schumer and allowing the government to reopen. Defense of the NFA may have been the price. Since the odds that the current SCOTUS will rule in our favor are better than 60%, the Trump administration may have felt safe in making such a deal. Those Democrat Senators may claim… Read more »
Hilarious how people will still defend these infringers. The cult of personality runs deep.
Well well well
Been out exercising some 2A on an 8 point and come into see this. Glad to see the nonsense worship honeymoon love fest dying down. It’s about time so the real fight can get going. This is sure gonna put a damper on voting enthusiasm too.
“Gun Owners helped elect President Trump with the expectation that he would defend their right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. Now, many of those same voters are wondering if they were just given lip service.”
Uhhh…..yeah, they were, just like from January of 2017 to January of 2021. The only ones who couldn’t see that coming were the hopelessly, hopeful hopium addicts who just cannot accept that their guy is a Deep State/JWO Trojan horse.
Is it Pam Bondi? Well then, that explains it.
See, govt no matter who’s there, like to keep records while at same time touting they will not infringe on your rights.
The GOP, repubs and Trump used the 2A community for votes.