In the NRA’s case, Brown v. ATF, the Department of Justice filed its opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, along with its own cross-motion, defending the National Firearms Act of 1934’s registration requirement for suppressors, short-barreled long guns, and NFA-defined “any other weapons.”
In its filing, the DOJ argues that the registration mandate remains a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power, despite the tax being eliminated by President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer. The DOJ additionally claims that firearms registration is justified under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.
The DOJ further contends that suppressors and short-barreled rifles can be registered consistent with the Second Amendment because they are “particularly dangerous weapons” and “uniquely susceptible to criminal misuse.”
The DOJ’s sweeping defense of the NFA’s registration requirements is especially perilous because it could establish a precedent for the federal registration of all firearms. Yet the DOJ has advanced similar arguments in other cases, including in response to the cert petition in Rush v. United States, an NRA challenge to the NFA’s restrictions on short-barreled rifles at the U.S. Supreme Court.
The NRA will continue to fiercely oppose the registration of any firearms and work toward the ultimate goal of dismantling the unconstitutional NFA.
Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org for future updates on NRA-ILA’s ongoing efforts to defend your constitutional rights, and please visit www.nraila.org/litigation to keep up to date on NRA-ILA’s ongoing litigation efforts.
Note to readers: Please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, social media, internet forums. etc.
Source link
