Last evening I did a video pointing out some inconsistencies with the Department of Justice and how they claim that they are the most pro-2A DOJ ever. I came from Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dillon, who’s a rock star. She was defending her boss Pam Bondi. I got some heat, some people writing back saying, Jared, you’re wrong. Jared, you’re only pointing out the bad things and you don’t watch the channel if you don’t know that I actually tell you when they do good stuff too. But, let’s talk about what the self-proclaimed most 2A friendly DOJ ever just told the United States Supreme Court about the NFA.

Most 2A friendly, huh? Perfect shirt for the video. Make tyrants afraid again. Links down below if you want to grab one of these. Hey everybody, it’s Jared from Guns N’ Gadgets, your source for news that affects our rights to keep and bear arms that the mainstream media doesn’t cover. And yes, it’s brutally honest, so buckle up. Today we’re gonna dive deep into a big one here. The Department of Justice has filed its official brief defending the National Firearms Act in a case that could have massive implications for the Second Amendment. We’re talking about the Jamond Rush case, which is now sitting in front of the United States Supreme Court.

Now, if the court takes this case, it could decide whether the NFA’s registration and taxation requirements for short barreled rifles, the same law that used for decades to regulate suppressors, SBRs, and machine guns, could violate the Second Amendment. And I’m going to tell you, this isn’t the right case. So stick around because this one’s loaded with history, legal strategy, and the future for gun rights, potentially. And I hope that the United States Supreme Court does not take this case. Yes, you heard me right, and I’ll tell you why. But first I want to thank G-Code for sponsoring the video.

For nearly 30 years, G-Code Holsters has been engaged in the design, development, and production of premium tactical gear. Guided by the uncompromising belief that quality is the only thing that they sell, the company builds every product on the pillars of exceptional design, rugged materials, expert workmanship, and dedicated service. Every G-Code product is proudly 100% American made and backed by a lifetime warranty, reflecting their belief that quality gear should stand the test of time and real world use. More than just gear, G-Code represents a way of life defined by confidence, readiness, and American freedom.

It’s built for those who take their responsibility seriously and demand the same from the equipment they trust. G-Code’s expertise doesn’t stop at Holsters. They make magazine carriers, belts, bags, packs, placards, plate carriers, all of them are designed with the same uncompromising approach. From everyday concealed carry to range work to field deployment and professional duty, every piece of G-Code gear is purpose engineered and battle proven. That’s why G-Code gear is trusted by professionals worldwide. Hit the link down below and use promo code G-Code 10 to save 10% off the entire web store.

Thanks for sponsoring this video. G-Code, appreciate y’all. All right, let’s start with what actually happened. This is right from the petition for a writ of certiorari presented and submitted to the Supreme Court. The question presented is whether the National Firearms Act’s registration and taxation requirement for short barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment on its face. I know, Jared, why don’t you want the Supreme Court to take this case? Well, this isn’t the right plaintiff and you’ll see here in a minute. Now, the DOJ’s response, they had this statement here. They said following a guilty plea in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, the petitioner, Rush, was convicted of possessing an unregistered short barreled rifle in violation of 26 USC 5841, 5861 Delta, and 5871.

He was sentenced to 30 months imprisonment to be followed by two years of supervised release. The court of appeals affirmed. Then they get into the details of the incident. In February of 2022, a police officer saw Jimon Rush, whose driver’s license had been revoked, pull into a driveway in a truck and walk into a courthouse for a court appearance. After leaving the courthouse, the petitioner walked to a nearby apartment complex. Less than an hour later, the petitioner’s sister left the apartment complex and began to drive the truck away. The officer stopped the truck and asked the sister to call the petitioner who admitted that he drove the truck and agreed to come talk to the officer about driving without a license.

After seeing what appeared to be marijuana in the center console, the officer began to search the truck. The petitioner Rush arrived while the search was ongoing. He then opened one of the truck’s doors and reached for an object on the floorboard. After a brief struggle, the officer restrained and handcuffed the petitioner. But the petitioner broke free, ran to the truck, and tried to shift the truck into drive using his chin. The petitioner relented when the officer threatened to use his taser. A search of the truck uncovered a loaded rifle with a 7.5 inch barrel along with three loaded 30 round magazines.

The petitioner later admitted he had intended to retrieve the short barrel rifle and take off running with it. A federal grand jury indicted the petitioner on one count of possessing an unregistered short barrel rifle in violation of the NFA and the petitioner moved to dismiss the indictment arguing that the NFA’s registration requirement violates the second amendment on its face. I agree with him on that. The district court denied the motion and the petitioner pleaded guilty while reserving his right to appeal. The court sentenced him to 30 months of imprisonment to be followed by two years of supervised release.

The court of appeals affirmed. It held the petitioner’s challenge was foreclosed by United States versus Miller, which rejected a second amendment challenge to the NFA’s prohibition on the possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. The court also held that even apart from Miller, the statute complies with the second amendment because the record did not show that short-barreled rifles are commonly used by ordinary law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense. Finally, the court noted the NFA merely establishes a registration and taxation scheme and does not ban short-barreled rifles. So that’s the incident that got us to where we are right here.

Russia’s argument to the Supreme Court is simple. He says if the Constitution protects the right to keep mere arms, then the government shouldn’t be able to force you to register or pay a tax to own one. He’s asking the Supreme Court to reconsider that precedent under modern second amendment rulings like Heller and Bruin. So why don’t I want the Supreme Court to take this case? Well, first off, I’m gonna say he’s right. The NFA is illegal and unconstitutional. But because, just like in Rahimi, when you have a plaintiff that is less than stellar or not an upstanding member of society, we’ll say, then this Supreme Court tends not to like them and not be favorable to them and we get a decision that does not bode well for the rest of the country regarding the second amendment.

We don’t want the Supreme Court to establish bad law. And I’ve even talked to Mark Smith over there at Four Boxes Diner about this and he thinks the same thing. So let’s look at what the Department of Justice just filed in response to his Russia’s attempt to get the Supreme Court to take this case. Because I have big problems with what the self-proclaimed most-2A-friendly DOJ ever is saying here. The DOJ, through Solicitor General John Sauer, who is supposed to be wicked pro-2A, is arguing that the Supreme Court not hear this case, saying that the lower court got it right and the NFA is perfectly constitutional.

Look, I understand that they have a job and they just can’t like go in and shred everything immediately. I understand how, you know, courtroom procedure works. I understand how law works. I was not a lawyer but I did take a lot of law classes and I did practice in the courts being a police officer. I was in courts testifying for over 20 years so I do know how the system works. But I still have problems with this because Solicitor General Sauer started out saying this. The petitioner renews his contention that the NFA’s registration requirement which prohibits possessing short-barreled rifles without registering them violates the Second Amendment on its face.

The Court of Appeals correctly rejected that argument and its decision does not conflict with any decision of this court or of any other Court of Appeals. No further review is warranted. Well, S.G. Sauer, what about Heller and Bruin? Because the NFA violates those. I’ll continue. Here are the three main arguments that the DOJ submitted in an attempt to tell the Supreme Court not to take this case. Do not issue a writ of certiorari. First, they claim a facial challenge meaning Russia is saying that the law is unconstitutional and every case is the most difficult challenge to win.

And they’re right on that. And they argue the DOJ that the law clearly applies to some illegal conduct like criminals sawing off barrels or making guns for trafficking so the law can’t be unconstitutional in every situation. Oh, okay. So it’s an infringement still. Second, they fall back on the 1939 Miller decision again saying that since the Supreme Court already decided that short-barreled shotguns weren’t protected under the Second Amendment, well, the same logic applies to short-barreled rifles. In their view, these aren’t the types of firearms commonly used for lawful purposes so they’re not protected arms.

The most to a friendly DOJ ever. And third, they tried to use Bruin’s historical tradition test against us saying that special taxes and size regulations on firearms go all the way back to the 1800s. They actually cite historical taxes on things like buoy knives, sword canes, and pocket pistols claiming that these were early examples of government regulating or taxing dangerous weapons. And therefore, the NFA is consistent with the American tradition of firearm regulation. The most to a friendly DOJ ever, ladies and gentlemen. I could rest my case here but I’ll keep going.

The DOJ also made a point to paint short-barreled rifles as especially dangerous. They quoted Justice Alito’s writings calling them notoriously dangerous and uniquely attractive to violent criminals. They even brought up Al Capone and the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre saying that sawed-off guns were gangsters weapons of choice and that’s why Congress acted in 1934. That’s correct. The whole NFA is because of Al Capone and the gangster error. That’s exactly why they did it. They couldn’t stop them so they would create this tax knowing they would never ever pay it and they could get them on tax avoidance.

That was the whole way to bring down the mob. Now here’s where things get a little more absurd here for the most pro 2A DOJ ever. They also admit in the same filing that Congress just reduced the NFA tax for SBRs to $0 starting January 1st, 2026. So on one hand, the DOJ is claiming that short-barreled rifles are so dangerous that they deserve to be tightly controlled. But on the other, Congress is literally saying that the tax should be $0. And if that doesn’t expose how arbitrary the law is, I don’t know what does.

So why does the Rush case matter to you or I? Well, if the Supreme Court takes this case, I hope they don’t, this one, they could finally address whether the NFA’s registration and tax scheme violates the Keep and Bear Arms Clause, whether short-barreled rifles are in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense, and whether Miller, a case decided before World War II and before anyone had AR-15s, should finally be reexamined under Bruin’s historical test. But again, I do not think that this is the right one, this case, and I’m betting that the Court refuses to issue a certiorari here.

But if SCOTUS does take this case and rules that the NFA’s SBR provisions are unconstitutional, it could have a domino effect here. Suppressors would be gone from the registry, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, same thing. Possibly even challenged the broader NFA structure that treats law-abiding owners like you or I as felons for paperwork violations. This could be the beginning of the end for the NFA, or it could be another missed opportunity because the Court doesn’t look fondly upon plaintiffs or practitioners that are less than stellar, upstanding citizens, if you know what I mean.

So, where are we right now? The DOJ’s opposition brief was filed last week, October 2025, not sure when you’re watching this. The next step is for the Supreme Court to decide whether they’ll take the case or not. It’s called granting certiorari. If they take it, we’ll see arguments in 2026, which is two months away, possibly with massive consequences for gun owners nationwide. But if they deny it, then the Seventh Circuit’s decision stands and the NFA’s registration and taxation system stays in place, at least for now. There are other lawsuits that are challenging the NFA that I think are better suited for what our long-term goals are.

From a Second Amendment standpoint, this case exposes just how outdated and unconstitutional the NFA really is. It was written in 1934 before semi-automatic rifles were even common, before Heller or Bruin, and before anyone ever imagined a modern AR platform. The government keeps claiming that the NFA doesn’t ban anything, but let’s be honest, when a law threatens 10 years in prison for a barrel that’s an inch too short, that’s not a regulation, that’s infringement. A case like this could be perfect for the Supreme Court to revisit Miller and apply the Bruin standard, the one that says that the government must show a historical tradition of restricting a firearm before banning or regulating it.

So we’ll see. And when it comes to SBRs, that history doesn’t even exist. Americans have owned and used compact rifles for centuries. The NFA’s registry and tax are just another bureaucratic trap for law-abiding citizens. So here’s what I’ll say to all of you. Stay vigilant and stay informed. If you’re not already subscribed, hit the subscribe button and ring the bell so that you don’t miss updates as this case moves through the Supreme Court’s process. I am Jared, and this is Guns and Gadgets. Stay safe, stay armed, and stay free. God bless America.

It’s on us. We are the keepers of this republic. So let’s start acting like it. I appreciate y’all. 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.