The major loudest gun control groups just rushed to defend the National Firearms Act and it’s worse than you think. Question. Can you be supportive of the Second Amendment if these major gun control groups are backing you in a major lawsuit defending the NFA? That’s where we are right now. I want you to dwell on that. Hey everybody, welcome back to Guns and Gadgets, the premier source for Second Amendment news and your home. For the truth about the Second Amendment, government overreach and everything the anti-gun lobby and the Department of Justice doesn’t want you to know.

Today I’m gonna break down a brand new amicus brief filed in federal court by Brady Everytown and Giffords, three of the biggest loudest gun control groups in America. And surprise, surprise! They are openly defending the National Firearms Act, the NFA, one of the most unconstitutional infringement-ridden gun laws ever to be put on the books, as well as supporting the ATF, Pam Bondi, and the DOJ in doing so. And the way they are defending it, the arguments they make, the historical claims they twist, my friends, it’s absolutely wild. The brief was filed in the Silencer Shop and Gun Owners of America case in the Northern District of Texas, the Silencer government’s defense of the NFA, specifically the registration and background check requirements for short-barrel rifles, short-barrel shotguns, suppressors, and any other weapons.

And we’re going to unpack it all for you. I read this thing, so let’s dive in. And before I do, real quick, blackout coffee, 48 hours only. You can buy one pack of cake cups, and get one that’s not falling open, and get the second one free. So if you want to support GOA, which helps support this lawsuit, because GOA, for every item of theirs that we sell, whether it’s whole bean, ground, or their cake cups, we give two dollars per item right back to GOA to fight the fight. So buy one, get one half off, use code PODS50, link is below, use the QR code, and support those who support you.

Let’s dive in here. Now, right from the opening pages of this brief, the groups tell you exactly what they want. They say that they have a substantial interest in ensuring the Constitution is interpreted in a way that allows government to address gun violence through regulation. Yeah, translation, they want the courts to keep rubber stamping infringements. They frame the NFA as a public safety tool, claiming it was enacted because certain weapons were specifically dangerous and easily concealable, and they say that Congress had to act because criminals supposedly favored these weapons.

But let me tell you something. This has been the gun control playbook for 90 plus years. Find a scary term, exaggerate its danger, and use fear to justify more government power. Suppressors are not dangerous. Short-barreled rifles are not dangerous. Short-barreled shotguns are not dangerous. Criminals do not file tax stamps because they’re the dangerous ones. Criminals do not fill out Form 4s. Criminals do not sit around waiting on ATF approval. Law-abiding Americans will and do if they want those items, even though those hoops they jump through are unconstitutional. But the brief tries to spin the NFA as a modest, measured, and even straightforward regulatory scheme that supposedly helps responsible gun owners.

Folks, when the government requires fingerprints, photos, federal permission, months of waiting, and a lifetime registration database, that’s not modest. That’s control, complete control. Now, the brief spends a huge portion trying to paint suppressors and barreled firearms as some kind of terrorist’s dream kit. They cite mass shootings, assassination attempts, and even a Masonic Center plot to argue that silencers help criminals stay undetected. Yeah, they’ve never shot one, I’ll tell you that. But you know what they don’t cite? Actual statistics showing widespread criminal use of suppressors. Why? Because those statistics don’t exist.

Every government report, even ATF’s own data, shows suppressors are used in an extremely tiny fraction of crimes. Criminals don’t bother with them because suppressors don’t make a gun silent. It just protects your hearing. But the brief insists that suppressors delay emergency response and make it less likely that people will call 911. Man, that’s some deep doo-doo right there. That is pure Hollywood fiction. Meanwhile, these same groups oppose expanded trauma response training, oppose armed self-defense, and oppose the very tools that stop violent criminals in the first place. This is why people don’t trust them.

They then pivot to short-barreled rifles and shotguns claiming they provide little, if any, functionality for lawful purposes. Tell that to home defense users, competitive shooters, disabled shooters who benefit from shorter, more controllable, maneuverable firearms, smaller statured women or hunters in dense environments. Gun control organizations always pretend to know that what your needs are better than you do. And it’s time. We’re done. This is where the brief really shows its true colors here, this part I’m gonna tell you now. They argue that registration distinguishes law-abiding gun owners from criminals.

It deters straw purchases and controls the illicit market all while ensuring traceability. And therefore, must remain intact, even after Congress reduced the NFA tax to zero in 2025, even though Congressmen and women are on record saying that their intent was to also remove the registration requirement for these items. But registration does one thing extremely well. It creates a permanent federal list of gun owners. They can claim that it’s not prohibition. They can claim that it’s not burdensome. They can claim it’s just record-keeping. But Americans have lived through 90 years of ATF scandals, abuse, overreach, and their registration leads.

Ask any citizen of any country where they first registered guns what came next. And guess what? The brief explicitly says the registration remains essential because it is the backbone of all federal firearms enforcement. Exactly. And that’s the problem. Let me be very clear. The NFA does not survive because it fits within the Second Amendment. It survives because the courts for decades have treated the NFA as a tax, not a gun law, and because Congress blended its taxing and commerce powers to expand federal authority. And the brief openly embraces this strategy.

They argue Congress used its taxing power, Congress used its commerce clause, commerce used its necessary and proper clause, and courts should allow this overlapping authority. This is how you know that they are petrified of Bruin. The Bruin standard requires historical tradition. There is none. There is no historical tradition of registering firearms. There is no historical tradition of taxing firearms. There’s no historical tradition of fingerprinting gun owners. There’s no historical tradition of seeking federal permission. There’s no historical tradition of waiting months for approval. And there’s no historical tradition of banning unregistered possession of items that are constitutionally protected.

None of it existed in 1791, which is when the Second Amendment was adopted and ratified. None of it existed in 1868. None of it existed in any constitutional grounding period. None of it. So what do they do? They run back to the Commerce Clause. They run back to interstate markets. They run back to the 1930s legislative panic because Al Capone and his homeboys have Tommy guns. They avoid the Second Amendment entirely. Now this is one of the most important takeaways for you. The gun control groups argue that even though the tax is now $0, well not now, in like 20 days, they argue that the registration system must stay in place to support the NFA’s revenue structure.

I’m sorry, a $0 tax does not raise revenue. Therefore, the NFA, at least for suppressors, SBRs and SBSs and AOWs, is no longer a tax law. Which means what? It is a pure gun control law masquerading as a tax law. And once you remove the tax, the NFA loses the only constitutional justification that courts have relied on for decades. And that is why this case matters so much. The entire NFA structure could and should collapse under Bruin if courts finally look at it for what it is. A gun control statute created to avoid the Constitution.

Brady, every town in Giffords, did us a favor. They laid out their philosophy, their tactics, and their worldview. Government should decide which weapons are dangerous. Government should track gun owners in a federal database. Government should require permission before you exercise your rights. Government must regulate even intrastate private personal gun ownership. And courts should defer to Congress instead of the Constitution. This is the blueprint for every future gun control attempt. It’s in this paper, it’s in this filing. But here’s the good news. The more they double down, the more obvious the infringement becomes.

The NFA has survived on technicalities and legal fictions for 90 plus years. Now it’s facing the most serious challenge, even under Bruin, and the modern Supreme Court. Now it’s facing its most serious challenge ever, under Bruin, and the modern makeup of the United States Supreme Court. And believe me, they know it. The DOJ knows it too. Pam Bondi, Armie Dylan, all of them, they know it. But let me know what your thoughts are in the comments. I know what I think, but what do you think? Should the NFA’s registration requirements be struck down entirely? And do you think the courts will finally view the NFA through the lens of the Second Amendment instead of Depression-era legislative fears? Stay tuned, because the fight is just heating up here.

This is Guns N Gadgets, the premier source for Second Amendment news. Be safe, stay vigilant, and remain unwavering of our defense of constitutional rights. Subscribe to the channel if you love the Second Amendment and wanna know more about what these groups do every single day to try to take it from us. And until we see each other again, stay armed and stay free. God bless you, God bless America. I’ll see you on the next one. Take care. [“Pomp and Circumstance”)
[tr:trw].

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