I’m looking at my monitor. The writing is on the wall. Don’t trust the government. Get one of these links down below. Let the government know what you think. Now, this case challenges the National Firearms Act’s regulations on short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, suppressors, and any other weapons, also known as AOWs. Especially after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act zeroed out the tax on making and transferring these items. Now, the plaintiffs say, hey, hey, this tax is gone. The whole NFA scheme collapses. But I’m going to say it again because this is what they call themselves.

The self-proclaimed, most 2A-friendly DOJ ever just filed a 48-page response arguing the exact opposite. And trust me, their arguments give us a crystal clear look at how the federal government is planning to defend gun control here during the Trump presidency, even though they’ve been tasked to get rid of stuff. Don’t trust the government. Ever. Today, I’m going to take you line by line through what the government argues, why it matters, and how this case could shape the future of suppressors, SBSs, and the NFA regulations moving forward nationwide. I’ve read this whole thing. I’m going to tell you all about it so that you don’t have to read the 48 pages because there’s a lot in it.

But before we dive in, patriots, let me ask you something serious. If the grocery stores were to shut down for three days, would your family be okay? Seventy-eight percent of Americans would go hungry in a three-day emergency. That’s why you should stock your pantry with Ready Pantry. We’ve all seen how fast things can go sideways. We’ve all witnessed it firsthand and recently, too, from major hurricanes destroying parts of this country where hurricanes never really have gone before, like over mountains here in the South. Or supply chains being stretched thin, or economic collapse, government shutdowns, plan-demics, you name it, we’ve all seen it recently.

That’s why I trust Ready Pantry, and you should, too. Ready Pantry is an American-based company offering 25-year shelf-stable food and drinking water that lasts up to 50 years. They’re delivering the freshest product sold in the industry, and it’s been packaged within a few months of it being delivered to your home. Real ingredients, real calories, real nutrition, not that warehouse stale stuff that some companies sell and it’s been sitting on shelves for a decade. They include meals for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, and they even come with dessert. They all taste amazing, and you can rest assured that all of their products are sourced right here in America.

Plus, you get the peace of mind knowing that you have an emergency supply of food and water, and you’re ready for anything. Ready Pantry makes it simple. Choose a 72-hour, one-week, or a one-month supply, and bulk drinking water from single stackable cases all the way up to full pallets. And here’s the best part. By now, Pay Later is available. They’re offering up to 20% off of long-term packages and get an additional 10% off and free shipping when you use my code GNG10 at ReadyPantry.com. You can also use this QR code if you’re watching on a smart device that brings you right to it.

Patreons prepare, victims panic. Stock your pantry today at ReadyPantry.com. Don’t forget to use GNG10 to save on shipping and that extra money, too. All right, guys, everything I’m about to share with you is directly from the government’s own filing, which… I mean, it’s on the record now, so let’s dive in. This lawsuit was filed the same day that President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful bill into law, which was July 4, 2025, Independence Day. Four gun rights groups, three firearms businesses, 15 states, and an individual plaintiff all joined forces to argue that… Their requirements on short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, and AOWs are now unconstitutional.

Always have been, too. Now, who are these groups? The businesses, the states, and the individual plaintiff, you ask? Well, I’m glad you asked, because I’m going to tell you. Silencer Shop, Gun Owners of America, FRAC, which is Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, B&T USA, Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo, Gun Owners Foundation, Brady Wets, and the states of Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Now, they raised two major claims. Number one, Congress no longer has power to enforce these NFA rules because the One Big Beautiful bill eliminated those taxes.

Number two, the Second Amendment forbids these restrictions altogether. Now, this is a facial challenge, meaning the plaintiffs are arguing that the law is unconstitutional everywhere for everyone in all circumstances. It’s a high bar, but they’re going for the jugular. Now, the government begins by reminding the court that acts of Congress come with a presumption of constitutionality, and facial challenges are the most difficult to mount successfully. They explicitly say that the plaintiffs must show that no set of circumstances exist under which the NFA rules could be valid. This sets the stage. The DOJ wants the judge to dismiss the entire case without even reaching any individual facts.

The DOJ relies on three constitutional powers. Number one, the taxing power. The NFA still raises revenue. The plaintiffs argue that the One Big Beautiful bill zeroed out the making and transfer taxes. Therefore, no taxing power remains. And this comes after members of Congress came out in an official letter, and some of them have been going on interviews across the country about this letter that they sent to the attorney general informing her that their intent, that’s key. Congress’s intent was to remove the registration requirements for short-barreled firearms, AOWs, and suppressors when they zeroed out that tax. The DOJ responds bluntly, saying, Actually, the NFA still imposes a special occupational tax on dealers, importers, and manufacturers, so there.

Therefore, they claim all registration and approval requirements still aid in the collection of that tax. They cite Supreme Court cases going back to Sosinski in 1937 and Dormius in 1919 that approved regulatory schemes tied to taxation. Now, the government argues that because the NFA still collects some revenue, every registration, approval, and criminal penalty is still in aid of that tax and therefore constitutional. Number two, they then claim the government’s catch-all, the Commerce Clause, saying that these weapons move interstate commerce. They move in interstate commerce, rather. Now, this is where the government really digs in in their response.

Most of their verbal diarrhea was around the Commerce Clause. It’s their catch-all. They use it for everything. Drug violations, gun violations, everything is the Commerce Clause violation. Now, they argue the NFA is valid because NFA items are overwhelmingly manufactured, sold, and transferred across state lines. They also say that the plaintiffs themselves, like Silencer Co., Palmetto State Armory, B&T, and Silencer Shop, operate in interstate commerce themselves. The NFA explicitly bans transporting NFA firearms across state lines unless it’s registered. Now, the government says that no one could seriously contend the NFA cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause.

Hmm, so there. Now, this is exactly what they said in earlier cases, and they’re repeating that line here. Number three, then, the most too-a-friendly DOJ ever digs in really deep to defend the NFA by pulling out the Necessary and Proper Clause, saying, even intrastate, meaning stays within the state, doesn’t leave the state, even intrastate items affect interstate markets. The DOJ cites Gonzalez versus Rach, the medical marijuana case, arguing, if people could build unregistered SBRs or suppressors at home, these items would inevitably enter the interstate marketplace. So, Congress can regulate even intrastate manufacture and possession.

They say that these firearms would upset the market. That’s how they’re going to say that they have power to regulate those. If you make a couple and sell them, well, that’s upsetting the market. Therefore, ah, there you go, the Necessary and Proper and the Commerce Clause, boom. Now, that is straight from their filing. Then, they go to the government’s Second Amendment argument, and this is where things get real. The DOJ, the most too-a-friendly DOJ, argues three things. Number one, the Miller case in 1939. They say that it already held that short-barreled shotguns are not protected by the Second Amendment.

Yes, they are relying on Miller. They claim Miller establishes that short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns are dangerous and unusual, therefore not protected by the Second Amendment. Sounds like a pro-too-a DOJ to me. I’m going to withhold my comment that it was just about to come out. Number three, they argue, suppressors aren’t protected either. Even though they’re on record in a federal lawsuit saying that the Second Amendment protects suppressors, here, they’re saying suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment. And they say that the Fifth Circuit already said so. They cite the United States versus Peterson, which is an ongoing Fifth Circuit case.

And according to the brief, the Fifth Circuit held that NFA suppressor regulations are presumptively lawful. They also say that AOWs, any other weapons, are similar to concealable weapons historically regulated. The government argues that these weapons were historically restricted and thus meet Bruin’s historical tradition standard. Then the DOJ even says that if, if the good guys win, the court must issue the weakest remedy possible. The government warns any relief must be no more burdensome than necessary. On who? On them. Not on us, we the people. They want it to be no more burdensome than necessary on the illegal justifications by the illegal entity called the ATF and DOJ.

Now, they’re telling the judge here, look, Your Honor, don’t strike down the NFA, please. We love it. Please don’t issue a nationwide injunction. These peasants don’t deserve the individual liberties that were sold to them in the Bill of Goods called the Constitution. And Your Honor, rule only for the individual plaintiffs, if at all. They want to limit the damage. What does this mean for gun owners? Well, here is the plain English translation for you. Number one, the government is terrified of losing the NFA. They are defending this law with everything they have. Taxing power, commerce power, necessary and proper clause, and historical analogues.

Number two, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, now law, zero tax dollar victory is being downplayed here. The DOJ says the tax repeal changed nothing, Your Honor. Registration still stands. Approvals still stand. And criminal penalties still stand. Number three, the government is leaning heavily on old precedent. Miller, Sosinski, and Dormius, or Doraemus. However you say it, they want to lean on it. Now this suggests that they know that the Bruin era analysis is a very weak point for them. Number four, the plaintiff’s facial challenge is a big swing here. The DOJ’s entire brief focuses on how high that bar is.

They know a facial victory for the plaintiffs would obliterate the NFA structure. Number five, the government says that this case will likely end up at the Fifth Circuit en banc and then the Supreme Court. And it could become the landmark NFA challenge case that the Second Amendment world has been waiting for. Patriots, this case is huge. The government’s 48-page filing confirms that the self-proclaimed most two-way friendly DOJ ever, their words, not mine, are absolutely committed to protecting the unconstitutional and illegal National Firearms Act, even after Congress zeroed out the taxes and told them that their intent was to remove that registration requirement as well.

This fight is far from over, but it’s one of the clearest paths we’ve seen in 91 years towards scaling back or even eliminating NFA restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled firearms. If you want me to keep breaking down this case as it progresses, and eventually the court’s ruling, hit that subscribe button, ring the bell, and share this video with every gun owner you know. If you’re someone who is, I’ve seen it several times here in the last few days, people make comments like, Jared, I haven’t seen you in my feed for weeks or months.

It’s good to know that you’re still making videos. Brothers and sisters, I make videos every day. YouTube is forcing you to physically go to my channel on YouTube, to physically search guns and gadgets and check it every day. They don’t want you to know what’s going on because the more that we, the people, are educated and informed of what’s going on, the stronger we are. And don’t forget, YouTube is an anti-gun entity. So stay safe, stay vigilant, stay armed, and stay free. I’ll bring you every update I can. I look forward to seeing you here on Guns and Gadgets.

I hope you have a great day. God bless you. 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.