The case is Hall versus Sig Sauer, currently in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association filed an amicus brief yesterday, as I’m recording this, you’ll see this tomorrow though, but they filed it on February 17, 2026 defending gun owners privacy rights. Now here’s the critical issue, plaintiffs in the lawsuit involving the Sig Sauer P320 want the court to force Sig to hand over the identities of other customers who contacted the company about alleged issues with their firearms. Now let that sink in, not criminals, not suspects, not people charged with anything, just regular Americans who reached out to the manufacturer for assistance, and the court could order their names be turned over and placed into litigation records.

The Second Amendment Foundation and the NRA are saying absolutely not. Right at the beginning of the brief, Saf, Second Amendment Foundation, makes clear that they are not even taking a position on whether the firearm is defective or not. This isn’t about product liability. This is about whether gun owners have a reasonable expectation of privacy when they exercise a constitutional right. Now the brief makes this crystal clear. It says privacy and firearms ownership has always been a fundamental component of the Second Amendment right, and they’re absolutely correct. The brief dives into history, and this is where it gets very powerful.

The founders didn’t write the Second Amendment so you could get a deer in November. It’s not about hunting. They wrote it because they had just overthrown a tyrannical government, and the document explains that the Second Amendment exists not only for self-defense, but as a final check on government power. And if the government can force disclosure of who owns firearms, then it can create lists. And if it creates lists, it can expose identities. And that fundamentally undermines the anti-tyranny function of the Second Amendment because privacy and resistance go hand in hand. You cannot have a meaningful right of the people if the government can track, expose, or weaponize your identity.

Let me pause here and thank CMMG for sponsoring today’s video. If you want a workhorse tool with reliability and dependability that you can trust, whether it’s for home defense, competition, training, CMMG’s tools are top tier. I have told you for years I’ve taken my banshees to trainings all across the country, and they even replaced my previous home defense tool, and I paired it with a CMMG zeroed quieting tube, and it’s very, very nice. American-made quality you can depend on, and be sure to check them out for a tool, and check out G&G 10 there for a nice surprise too.

Don’t forget to use that. All right, here’s where this all gets legally interesting. The brief walks through Supreme Court precedent about privacy expectations, citing cases like Carpenter versus U.S., or Byrd versus U.S., or Waylon versus Roe, and of course District of Columbia versus Heller. And the argument is simple but very powerful. The gun ownership is a deeply personal matter, and the Michigan Supreme Court has already recognized that gun ownership can be intimate or potentially embarrassing personal information. And think about today’s climate. If your name gets dropped into a public lawsuit record as a gun owner connected to litigation involving an allegedly defective firearm, what happens next? Media? Doxxing? Harassment? Social targeting? Employment consequences? We’ve already seen what happens when states leak gun owner’s data.

Remember California’s DOJ data breach? Accidental? Exposing concealed carry holders? It wasn’t hypothetical. It happened, and it caused nationwide outrage. And this is the part that concerned everyone watching the channel here. If a court orders Sig Sauer to turn over the identities of customers who contacted them, then what’s the limiting principle? What stops ATF subpoenas? Or civil discovery fishing expeditions? Or even anti-groups trying to expose private owners? Or public records battles over manufacturer complaint lists? And this is exactly how back-door registry culture starts. Not through Congress, not through legislation, but through court orders, through discovery, and through just this one case.

That’s how bureaucratic back-door gun control works. Now, critics will say, well, you gave your information to Sig voluntarily. That’s third-party disclosure. And the brief addresses that as well. They cite Smith versus Maryland, but explain that modern precedent, including Carpenter’s case, makes clear that simply sharing information with a third party does not eliminate privacy protections. And the Supreme Court in Carpenter emphasized that courts must look at the nature of the information being sought. And what’s being sought here is the identities of gun owners. That’s not metadata. That’s not a phone number dialed.

That’s exposure of someone exercising a constitutional right. That’s different. Here is something most people won’t even think about here. If Americans know that contacting a firearm manufacturer for safety or help with issues could land their name in federal court records, well, what are they going to do? They won’t call. They won’t report issues. They won’t seek support. That’s pretty dangerous. That creates less safety. This isn’t just about privacy. It’s about encouraging responsible gun ownership without fear. And the brief even draws parallels to associational privacy cases like the NAACP versus Alabama, where forced disclosure of membership lists was struck down because of chilling effects.

The principle is the exact same. When government action chills the exercise of a constitutional right, courts should be extremely cautious. And here’s something huge. Congress has already recognized this privacy interest in Firearm Owners Protection Act, the FOPA. It prohibits the federal government from creating a registry of firearms and firearm owners. And the FBI must purge approved NICS records within strict time limits. States like Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, Arizona, and Hawaii all have laws protecting gun owner data. So the expectation of privacy is not just emotional, it’s codified, it’s statutory, and it’s historically rooted.

And this is one of those cases that doesn’t grab headlines like a Supreme Court ruling, but it could quietly reshape how exposed gun owners are in America. If courts normalize, hand over your customer lists, then manufacturers become vulnerable points. And then the anti-gun litigators gain leverage. And then privacy erodes. And once that door opens, you can never fully close it again. This is exactly the kind of subtle erosion that the founders warned us about. Not confiscation, not outright bans, incremental exposure, incremental intrusion, and incremental normalization. Privacy is part of and the Second Amendment is not just about the tool.

It’s about the balance of power between the citizen and the state. SAF and NRA stepping in here is a big deal. Because if they didn’t, this argument might not even have been made. This case isn’t about a defective pistol, it’s about whether exercising a constitutional right requires you to surrender your anonymous status. It’s about whether courts will treat gun ownership as sensitive personal information or disposable litigation collateral. And if privacy falls here, it will not stop. If you found this breakdown valuable, make sure that you are subscribed to Guns and Gadgets.

I cover the cases that the mainstream media doesn’t, don’t even talk about, especially the ones that quietly shape the future of the Second Amendment. Let me know your thoughts below. Should courts ever be allowed to compel disclosure of gun owner identities in civil litigation? I’ll be watching this one closely and I’ll keep you updated. Till then, stay armed and stay free and thank you for watching Guns and Gadgets. Have a great day. Take care. [tr:trw].

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