➡ The NRA is urging the Supreme Court to consider a case challenging the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) restrictions on short-barreled rifles and standard-capacity magazines. The case, Rush v. U.S., could determine whether the government has the right to tax, register, and criminalize ownership of these firearms. The NRA argues that the Seventh Circuit court wrongly decided that these rifles aren’t protected by the Second Amendment. This case could potentially end the NFA’s overreach and clarify how courts apply gun laws across the country.
➡ The Supreme Court is considering a significant case related to the Second Amendment, which could change the rules about what types of firearms are allowed. This case, supported by the NRA, could challenge the National Firearms Act, a law that many believe unfairly limits gun rights. If the court decides to change the law, it could affect regulations on various types of firearms and parts. This case is seen as a chance to restore the full meaning of the Second Amendment, ensuring that ordinary Americans can exercise their rights without being treated like criminals.

Risk 36 degrees, but I’m dedicated to you. This morning I want to tell you about the NRA pushing the Supreme Court to hear a direct challenge to the NFA, and it’s phenomenal. The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, which is the NRA ILA, has just filed its reply brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Rush v. U.S., a direct challenge to the NFA’s restrictions on short-barreled rifles and standard-capacity magazines. This case could finally force the High Court to decide whether Washington has the power to tax, register, and criminalize ownership of common firearms that ordinary Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear.

Let’s break it all down, say what the NRA says, and most importantly, what the self-proclaimed, most-to-a-friendly DOJ ever said in their response brief. It’s eye-opening. I also want to tell you what this case is about, how the NRA just called out the Seventh Circuit for defying Heller and Bruin, and why this could be the start of the end of the NFA’s unconstitutional overreach. We’ve never been in this situation before, we’re that close. Before we dive in, a quick shout out to today’s sponsor, keeping me warm is Blackout Coffee. Patriots, if you want to wake up with freedom in your cup or a warm beanie on your head, head over to blackoutcoffee.com and use code GNG10 for 10% off.

It’s roasted fresh right here in the USA, it doesn’t sit on shelves, shipped to you within two to three days of us making it, roasting it, and we love the Constitution as much as you do. All right, let’s get into this. The case I’ve covered before when it was filed, it’s Jamon Rush versus United States, and the NRA’s legal team here is led by Cooper and Kirk, and the NRA ILAs Joseph Greenlee, and they’re backing Rush in challenging the National Firearms Act’s registration and taxation requirements for short barreled rifles and magazines.

Now, well, magazines aren’t registered, but you know what I mean. Now, the lower court, the Seventh Circuit, basically said that the Second Amendment doesn’t even apply to short barreled rifles. That’s right, they said that these rifles are not arms protected by the Constitution, and that’s not just wrong, it’s a full-blown defiance of what the Supreme Court has already made crystal clear. Little nippy out here. The NRA ILA states in their reply brief, well, they started out by directly quoting D.C. versus Heller, saying, the Second Amendment’s plain text extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms.

They then point to the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin decision, which reaffirmed the same thing, that the right to keep and bear arms covers all bearable arms. Key words there, words mean something. Yet somehow the Seventh Circuit decided that SBRs aren’t even covered by the text of the Second Amendment. Now, the NRA calls that what it is, a dangerously wrong turn that ignores the Supreme Court’s binding precedent. Now, the self-proclaimed, most 2A-friendly Department of Justice ever tried to argue that the NFA’s restrictions are part of our historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Yeah, they got our back. But the NRA fired back hard, saying that the government’s examples are laughable. Now, the government’s central argument here in Rush NFA’s registration and taxation requirements for short barreled rifles do not violate the Second Amendment. The Department of Justice maintains that a facial challenge claiming the law is unconstitutional in all situations must fail because the NFA clearly has valid applications, such as preventing criminals from possessing unregistered weapons. It’s never worked, they do it anyway. The brief also notes that the law does not ban short barreled rifles outright.

It merely regulates them through registration and taxation, which means that a legitimate exercise of Congress has taken place. Now, the DOJ further argues that the Supreme Court’s precedent in U.S. v. Miller, way back in 1939, already forecloses Rush’s claim. In Miller, the court upheld the NFA’s restrictions on SBRs, finding that they were not the sort of weapons in common use for lawful purposes protected by the Second Amendment. The government says that SBRs are essentially the same type of dangerous and unusual weapon, and that Heller, back in 2008, reaffirmed Miller’s reasoning. Additionally, the DOJ asserts that the NFA is consistent with America’s historical tradition of regulating concealable or particularly dangerous arms through taxes or registration, comparing the NFA to 19th century taxes on weapons like buoy knives and pocket pistols.

Finally, the government, in their reply brief, points out that every federal court of appeals to consider this issue so far has upheld the NFA, and that no circuit has found it unconstitutional. It argues that Rush’s case raises no new legal questions and presents no circuit split for the Supreme Court to resolve. They don’t need a circuit split. Even Harvey Dillon said they needed one. They don’t. Therefore, the Solicitor General here urges the court to deny certiorari, concluding that the NFA’s modest registration scheme fits comfortably within the constitutional limits and long-standing historical practice.

Bullshit. They relied on a handful of laws written decades after the Second Amendment was ratified, and most of them came from slave-holding southern states that were restricting weapons for reasons that had nothing to do with constitutional tradition. They were racist. All gun control is racist. They weren’t analogues. They weren’t widespread. And they sure weren’t part of the founding era’s understanding of the right to keep and bear arms. Now, the brief even points out, the NRA’s brief, that is, that those few weapon bans, like the Laws on Bowie Knives I mentioned, popped up over 40 years after 1791, which is when the Second Amendment came about, and only in a small minority of states.

It’s not tradition. That’s an outlier. Next, the NRA calls out the Seventh Circuit for twisting the common-use test from Heller. Now, remember, Heller said, weapons in common use for lawful purposes are protected. That means if millions of law-abiding citizens own them, they’re covered, end of story, period, point blank, do not pass go, do not collect $200. There are over 850,000 SBRs that are legally registered in the NFA in America today. They’re legal in most states. They’re used by sportsmen, collectors, and homeowners, not criminals. But instead of asking how common they are, the Seventh Circuit asked what they’re used for.

In other words, they demanded proof that people use SBRs specifically for self-defense, not just own them. That’s nonsense. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, which means you get to bear them. You don’t have to justify your ownership to the government. Here’s where the brief really exposes the government’s argument. The NRA points out that there was never a real reason that SBRs were added to the NFA in the first place back in 1934. See, back then, Congress was trying to ban pistols, and to make sure that people couldn’t just cut down a rifle or a shotgun or turn it into a concealable gun, they lumped short-barreled rifles into the bill, and SBSs too.

But then, Congress removed pistols from the final version, realizing that they really couldn’t ban them. So the whole reason for including SBRs evaporated, and nobody fixed it. That was basically a drafting mistake that stuck around for 91 years. And that’s how we ended up here, with the law that treats a 14-inch, a 15-inch, or even a 15-and-a-half-inch barrel on an AR-15 like a machine gun. And here’s the kicker. The NRA’s brief says that there’s zero evidence that SBRs are more dangerous or more likely to be used in crime. The fact that studies show they’re rarely used by criminals at all means something.

Now you’ll hear anti-gun politicians out there bring up United States vs. Miller from 1939, and that’s the case they claim upheld the NFA. But the NRA’s brief clears that up too. Miller didn’t say that the government can ban short-barreled rifles. It said that short-barreled shotguns weren’t shown to be in common use at all at that time in 1939. Now that’s a totally different weapon, in a totally different era, and they’re most definitely in common use in 2025, SBRs that is. And here’s where what Miller actually confirmed, that the Second Amendment protects the kind of arms in common use by the people, and SBRs clearly meet that standard today.

The DOJ also tried a procedural dodge here saying that Rush can’t bring a facial challenge to the NFA because technically the law could be applied constitutionally to criminals. The NRA’s response? That logic means no one could ever bring a Second Amendment challenge at all. And I’m glad that they said that, because that’s exactly what the DOJ was saying here. The self-proclaimed, most to a friendly one. Now they point out that Heller itself was a facial challenge, and that the court struck down DC’s handgun ban entirely. And if that standard didn’t apply, the Heller decision would have never happened.

In short, the NRA says if Rush can’t challenge the NFA on its face, then facial challenges no longer exist. And that’s dangerous. Now this isn’t just about one man’s right to own an SBR, it’s about all of ours. But the case could decide how courts apply Bruin to gun laws across the country. And the NRA’s brief calls this case a perfect vehicle to fix the confusion and chaos that the lower courts have created. And right now the courts can’t even agree on basics, like whether all bearable arms fall under the Second Amendment’s text, whether common use belongs in the text stage or in the history stage of the Bruin test.

I mean, it was pretty clear what the Supreme Court said. And they can’t even decide what bearable arms are protected or banned. I mean, you can’t really ban any of them if they’re in common use, right? Now the NRA says it’s time for the Supreme Court to step in and settle it once and for all. The Supreme Court is now reviewing whether to take up this case. If they grant cert, we could be looking at the most consequential Second Amendment case since Bruin and Heller. And I hope they take the case. And if the court strikes down the NFA’s SBR provisions, it could absolutely ripple across the entire regulatory framework.

Suppressors, short barrel shotguns, even parts of ATF’s classification system could be on the chopping block. Now this is the kind of case that changes history. Patriots, we’re watching history in the making here. And for decades, the National Firearms Act has stood out as one of the biggest federal infringements on the right to keep and bear arms ever. A law built on flawed logic, false assumptions, and bureaucratic control. And now, thanks to Rush versus United States and the NRA, ILA’s powerful brief, this reply brief was phenomenal. The Supreme Court now has a chance to correct that wrong and restore the Second Amendment to its full constitutional meaning.

This isn’t about gangster weapons. Yes, the DOJ brought up the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in Bonnie and Clyde. It’s about ordinary Americans who just want to exercise their rights without being treated like criminals. I’ll be tracking this case every step of the way, right here on Guns and Gadgets. So make sure that you’re subscribed to the channel and have your notifications turned on, because you don’t want to miss how this one plays out. Thanks again to Blackout Coffee for keeping my ears and head warm this morning. I’m cold, I’m shivering, and everybody else is still asleep.

But use code GNG10 at checkout and start every morning with coffee that tastes like freedom. Until next time, stay safe, stay informed, stay armed, stay free, and stay warm. 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.