The United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari in two challenges to the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on short-barreled rifles. No hearing, no options, no explanation. And if you’ve already seen the headlines saying SCOTUS refuses to take NFA cases or seen other videos on this platform, on this topic, I want you to pause right there. Because what the court did not say here is just as important as what it did. This is not the end of the road, but it is a reality check. Let’s walk through exactly what happened, why this case was denied, how the lower courts justified it, and what this means for the future of the NFA in the Second Amendment.

Now, these are the cases at issue. One comes out of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. It’s United States versus Jamond Rush. And the second was US versus Robertson, or Robinson rather, out of Florida. And both cases are criminal challenges to the NFA. Now, Rush was convicted under the National Firearms Act, specifically 26 USC 5861 Delta, for possession of an unregistered short-barreled rifle, which was an AR-15. And for those who don’t know the difference, according to the National Firearms Act, you have a rifle barrel that’s under 16 inches in length, could be 15 and a half inches.

You’re bad. You’re a bad person. Now, they challenged the convictions here in both cases on Second Amendment grounds, arguing that the NFA’s registration requirements burden constitutionally protected conduct, and that the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin should invalidate that scheme, as well as the earlier precedent in the United States versus Miller, how it should no longer control these cases. Now, the circuits rejected that argument, and the Supreme Court just declined to review it. Now, that’s the procedural posture. Patriots, before we talk about why they did this, if you value American innovation, precision engineering, and companies that refuse to cut corners, while spending their own money to sue the government and restrictions of our Second Amendment, you need to talk about and know about CMMG.

CMMG is a U.S.-based manufacturer in Boonville, Missouri, known for advanced design, top-tier quality control, and products that are built to perform when it matters most. Everything they produce reflects a commitment to excellence, durability, and forward-thinking engineering, and it’s made right here in America. This is a company driven by problem-solvers, builders, and shooters who believe in doing things the right way, not the easy way. If you want to support American craftsmanship and innovation, head over to their site and see what sets them apart. CMMG is an American-made company and engineering products that are made to excel.

And you know, G&G 10 will make you smile. All right, let’s move on to the why. Why did the court do this? Well, this is where it gets important and, frankly, frustrating. The Seventh Circuit’s ruling leaned heavily on United States v. Miller, which is a 1939 case, and that’s the Supreme Court case used to uphold early NFA restrictions on short-barreled shotguns. The appellate court said, in plain English, we don’t get to decide whether Miller was wrongly decided, only the Supreme Court can do that. And because Miller hasn’t been explicitly overruled, the Seventh Circuit treated it as binding precedent, even after brewing.

They made three major claims. Number one, short-barreled rifles are dangerous and unusual, and the court repeatedly emphasized that firearms with shortened barrels are more easily concealable than standard rifles, more powerful than handguns, and allegedly more attractive to criminals. And therefore, in their view, not protected arms under the Second Amendment in the same way commonly owned handguns are. That’s the same logic that courts have used for decades. And yes, it directly conflicts with how many gun owners actually use SBRs today. Number two, the NFA is framed as a tax and registration law, not a ban.

The court stressed something that we see over and over again. They claim the NFA does not prohibit ownership. It merely requires registration, the payment of a tax, and government permission. Now, they framed this as a licensing condition, not an infringement, even though failing to comply results in felony charges and prison time. That’s the same standing that the most pro-2A friendly DOJ in history, self-proclaimed, that’s their point of view and their angle as they have continued to defend the NFA in court while saying that they’re pro-Second Amendment. That’s the same thing they’ve been doing.

Number three here, they say history supports regulation. Under the Bruin framework, the government has to show historical analogues. And the Seventh Circuit accepted examples such as colonial barrel length requirements, militia equipment standards, early firearm taxes and registration schemes, and going armed and surety laws. Both terrible. Now, they concluded these historical examples were relevantly similar and simpler enough to uphold the NFA’s treatment of short-barreled rifles. So why did the Supreme Court deny the cert? Well, here’s the key point. And this is where people often misunderstand what cert denial means. The Supreme Court denying certiorari does not mean that they ruled the NFA as constitutional.

That’s key. It does not mean that they agreed with the Seventh Circuit or the Florida courts. It means one thing and one thing only. They chose not to take this case at this time. And there could be many reasons. They may be willing to wait for a cleaner circuit split. They may want a different factual posture. And they may be letting more post-Bruin cases develop. There are some solid cases post the one big beautiful bill that have been filed by Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association, Firehouse Policy Co. It goes on and on.

There’s some phenomenal cases in the pipeline right now looking to destroy the registration requirements now that that tax has been moved to zero, which removes the foundational leg for a taxing scheme, right? They also may want a challenge that targets the NFA more directly, like the cases I just mentioned. Now cert denial sets no precedent, zero. And historically, the Supreme Court often denies multiple cases before finally stepping in. It’s so frustrating. But let’s be honest with ourselves. These cases had weaknesses as a vehicle for killing the NFA. They just did.

They arose from criminal convictions. This court historically, as it’s currently made, made up, is not friendly to what I term bad plaintiffs. We’ve seen that case in cases before, a bad plaintiff, a bad guy, a criminal, someone who’s been terrible, is not the real shining knight that we really want to bring to the cases. And also, when you do get a case that does go to the Supreme Court, obviously, typically, it’s either criminal or civil. So this court doesn’t like criminal plaintiffs. They involved these cases unregistered possession, and it allowed courts to frame the issue as tax evasion.

And then it let them hide behind Miller rather than confront the NFA head on. And that matters. Now strategically, future challenges are likely to be civil, a la all the cases I mentioned, and more facial challenges that are focused on the tax and registration as a constitutional burden, or registration as a prior restraint for people, or common use evidence post 1934. We have a couple of cases. Catano is one, and I can’t think of the other off the top of my head, but in Catano versus Massachusetts, the Supreme Court said that, you know, 200,000 items would constitute in common use.

And the case that I can’t think of the name off the top of my head was like 64,000 or 67,000 items were common use. And as last I checked, there are about 3.5 million suppressors that are in use today by civilians. And if you combine short barrel rifles and short barrel shotguns, it’s over a million that are, you know, registered and being used today. And that’s in common use. They also might be looking for a case focused on ATF’s modern enforcement posture. So the fight is evolving. It’s not over. Here’s the reality check.

The NFA remains in effect. Short barrel shotgun and rifle registration is still required. Federal courts are still leaning on Miller, and compliance is still enforced aggressively. But pressure is mounting. Multiple circuits are openly wrestling with Bruin’s implications, and several justices have already signaled discomfort with lower courts ignoring Bruin. And public awareness of how absurd the NFA has become is higher than ever. Remember, Heller, McDonald, and Bruin did not happen overnight. They were the result of years of litigation. Patriots, these denials are very frustrating. No doubt about it. But it’s not defeat. The Supreme Court did not bless the NFA.

They did not reaffirm Miller. They simply passed for now. The Second Amendment doesn’t live or die one cert petition at a time. The real question is not if the NFA will face a serious constitutional reckoning, but when and with what case. And make no mistake, the NFA is increasingly out of step with modern constitutional doctrine, modern firearm ownership, and the plain text of the Second Amendment. So the story is far from over. If you value clear, fact-driven reporting on the Second Amendment without corporate media spin, subscribing to this channel is how you can stay informed and stay ahead of the curve.

Every week, every day, I break down court rulings, legislation, and government actions that directly impact all of us and our rights, often before they hit the mainstream, if they do it all. So you’re not reacting after the damage is done. This channel exists to educate, document, and hold power accountable, not to chase narratives or talking points. When you subscribe to Guns and Gadgets, you are supporting independent journalism, strengthening the pro-liberty community, and ensuring that critical Second Amendment information continues to reach millions of Americans who refuse to be kept in the dark. Drop a comment down below.

Do you think the Supreme Court will eventually take an NFA case? And of the majors, the GOA case for the SAF NRA, all those cases, which one do you think should hit the Supreme Court? I’d like to see all of them hit it and be accepted and just destroy it, because I think those major cases have some phenomenal avenues in which they’re going at getting rid of what’s left of the NFA. Now, as always, thank you for being informed, engaged, and vigilant. Until next time, stay safe, stay armed, and stay free.

I love you, God bless you. Stay safe, take care of each other out there, and carry your gun. Take care. Thank you. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.