President Trump’s pardon of Tate Adamiak further focused the national spotlight on the weaponization of the unelected bureaucratic state against American citizens (see our recent interview with Tate here).
However, there’s still much of the story that deserves attention, including how the pardon came to fruition, what the pardon resolves for Mr. Adamiak, the disputed facts of the case, and key takeaways as individuals contemplate their relationship with their government.
To that end, we are pleased to present an interview with Calum Welch, one of Mr. Adamiak’s legal representatives, and a key role player in the appeals process. Mr. Welch provides a behind-the-curtain perspective, as well as some important pieces of information for consideration by the Second Amendment community.
News2A: Mr. Welch, thanks for adding your perspective from the legal side to this interview. This case received significant national attention. For example, Lee Williams wrote over 50 articles on the case. Do you believe any of the reporting aided the ultimate outcome?
Calum Welch: Absolutely. Court proceedings are limited to what has been entered into evidence and the arguments lawyers make on the record. Those are often lengthy and difficult to understand and there are limits to what can be presented and argued, which can be difficult to translate to the public. You don’t see this kind of outcry or national attention without the kind of reporting that people can understand and connect with.
That’s the power of the free press. Lee stayed on the story for years and his reporting kept Tate’s name in front of the public. Asking uncomfortable questions is one of the ways citizens can hold the government accountable, and that requires an informed public and people who work tirelessly keeping the public informed. The pardon is a powerful answer to people asking the hard questions.
News2A: What were the most significant disputed facts of the case?
CW: The fight was always over definitions and the ATF’s classifications of those definitions. Federal law defines a machine gun to include a weapon that is “designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot” automatically, and even “any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled.” The destructive device definition works the same way: it reaches devices that “may be readily converted” to expel a projectile, and any combination of parts from which such a device “may be readily assembled.” Words like “designed” and “readily restored” give the government enormous room to work with. The disputed facts were never really about what Tate actually possessed; it was ultimately about how the government classified the items based upon their own claims about what the items were designed to do or could be converted to do.
The problem is that the classifications and the conclusions the Government relied upon were based upon the application of ATF’s own shifting internal guidance and how ATF interprets and enforces the language enacted by Congress. Tate’s case is a chilling example of what can happen when an agency’s own interpretations of the statute it enforces carry criminal consequences. Even though it’s a different kind of case, a federal district court in Texas made the same point in an August 2026 decision, Defense Distributed v. Blanche, when it held that parts of the frame-or-receiver rule are unconstitutionally vague: the “decision of when a hunk of metal or plastic ‘may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver’ is left to the subjective determination of the ATF and does not provide fair notice to the reader about when a component becomes subject to enforcement.” That is a district court decision and its relief is limited to the parties, but the problem it identifies is the same one at the heart of Tate’s case.
In Tate’s case, after interpreting its own rulings and internal guidance, ATF classified cut up and unassembled parts, inert, demilitarized and nonfunctioning items, a non-firing replica, even items marketed as toy airsoft guns as “machine guns” and “destructive devices.” This was based upon examinations where, among other things, the examiner took parts from the National Firearms Collection (ATF’s own collection), installed them into items they seized from Tate, and then concluded that because the items could be “readily converted” in ATF’s test range using ATF’s equipment and parts, they were illegal weapons.
So even though the items seized were not functional weapons, the Government’s position was the items were still illegal because they could convert them to fire semiautomatically, or even just a single shot at a time. Under that kind of interpretation, what a person does or intends to do can become irrelevant. So long as the government can prove that some hunks of metal or plastic could be made into a regulated weapon, it ultimately does not matter whether a person would ever seek to create, convert, or possess a regulated weapon. And that was the basic theory the Government pursued, even as far as arguing that flat pieces of metal by themselves were machineguns.
News2A: Legally, what was the most challenging part of the case?
CW: I came into the case late, after remand from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals after one of the Counts was vacated on double-jeopardy grounds. At that point, we were limited to arguing about the sentence and why the District Court should not impose the 20-year sentence again. The most challenging things at that point were procedural questions about how narrow the review was and what we were permitted to address.
While the Fourth Circuit ordered one of the counts to be vacated, it affirmed the others. That meant we were unable to address many of the most important factual objections. Our position was that the enhancements that resulted in the 20-year sentence still require proof that the items are what the Government claimed they were. For instance, the Government should have to prove that a person possessed a rocket-propelled grenade and a functional launcher before someone can have their sentencing guidelines increased for possessing a rocket launcher. We were prepared to demonstrate that inert, nonfunctional, training-aid dummies without any internal fire control parts or explosive munitions do not support the massive 15-level enhancement. If there is neither a rocket nor any means of launching a rocket, there should not be a rocket launcher enhancement. Unfortunately, the Court held that we could not address the issue on procedural grounds, based upon the narrow remand from the Fourth Circuit.
But even before trial or any appeal, procedural issues are often the most challenging parts of any trial. Depending on the general strategy, rulings on pretrial motions, and something as simple as when a motion is filed can change what is even allowed to be introduced at trial. Juries only consider the evidence that is presented to them and have to follow the instructions the judge gives them. In a case like Tate’s, where the decision ultimately depends on what kind of information the jury is given about how to interpret the complicated rules, regulations, and definitions around firearms, procedural issues, like expert witness testimony, can make all the difference.
So I think the most challenging issue from the beginning was always trying to explain the complex regulatory landscape of firearms law. Even expert witnesses struggle with the definitions and classifications of certain firearms. Juries are made up of ordinary citizens, who will mostly have more limited knowledge of the many intricacies around firearms law. Having to explain that to a jury when you have limited resources, face procedural hurdles, and have to fight against the Government’s conflicting definitions is an almost impossible task.
News2A: To put it in layman’s terms, what exactly does the pardon resolve for Mr. Adamiak?
CW: A full and unconditional pardon wipes out the punishment and the legal disabilities that flow from the conviction and restores his civil rights under federal law. Practically, that does three things:
- It ends the criminal punishment. There is no further prison time, no additional fines or assessments, and no supervised release.
- It restores his federal firearm rights.
- It lifts the federal disabilities that come with a felony conviction, like the right to serve on a federal jury.
It’s also important to be clear about what a pardon does not do. It does not erase the record. It does not fix the rules and regulations that put Tate through this to begin with. It does not automatically return property the government took. It does not give him back the years he lost. Like the Supreme Court said almost 150 years ago, a pardon “does not give compensation for what has been done or suffered.” There is a lot of rebuilding Tate will still have to do, but the pardon provides a foundation.
News2A: How did this case wind up in front of President Trump for consideration for a pardon?
CW: It took a lot of hard work by a lot of people. A pardon doesn’t happen in a vacuum. There generally has to be a compelling reason and a certain amount of awareness of a case before any action will be considered. Tate’s family and friends championed his cause.
Folks like Lee Williams kept Tate in front of the public. Gun rights organizations like SAF and NAGR filed amicus briefs and kept the pressure up. Members of Congress supported the effort. Representative Crane even asked Director Cekada about Tate’s case in a hearing, and Director Cekada publicly acknowledged some of the issues with Tate’s case. Thousands of ordinary Americans signed petitions and wrote letters.
Most of all, Tate never gave up or lost sight of the bigger picture. I can’t speak to the deliberations behind the scenes, but everyone I’ve spoken with has been moved by Tate’s story. A story like this really resonates with people who care deeply about protecting our right to keep and bear arms, which I think is why Tate’s case caught the attention of the public and the White House.
News2A: To your knowledge, has the U.S. government ever conducted a similar prosecution against a citizen in such a manner?
CW: Tate’s case is unlike anything else I’ve seen, but these kinds of prosecutions are not new. Tate was also not the only one pardoned that day. The same clemency list included George Peterson, Shane Cox, and Jeremy Kettler. But the bigger question for me is how many other people have been convicted and sentenced over issues involving subjective interpretations of agency rules and regulations that we have never heard about?
Very few federal prosecutions go to trial. The general statistic that floats around is somewhere around 2-3% of all cases even go to trial. The possibility of a lengthy sentence, often called the “trial penalty,” is a serious factor in why the overwhelming majority of federal prosecutions end with a guilty plea. What set Tate’s case apart was both his decision to go to trial and the resulting sentence.
Before learning about this case, I don’t think any law-abiding gun owner or collector would have thought something like this was possible. The way the sentence enhancements are applied also shocks a lot of people. People tend to assume that a sentence enhancement for possessing a rocket launcher means that someone must have had a rocket and a launcher they could use to blow something up at any moment. I think people are right to be concerned about whether they could be prosecuted and sentenced to decades in prison for something like a demilitarized display piece you might find in a VFW Post or be able to purchase online without so much as a Form 4473. Tate’s case is something of a perfect storm as far as things that can go wrong, but as long as ATF and similar agencies have broad authority to write rules and to change their own guidance about how those rules will be interpreted and enforced, the conditions that produced this case are still in place.
News2A: Is the ‘new’ ATF, under the leadership of Director Cekada, materially different from that of the previous administration? Put another way, is there still a cultural or even unspoken policy of animosity towards individual gun owners and gun ownership?
CW: I’m a criminal defense attorney, so I have a cynical view of just about anything with a three-letter acronym. At the ground level in trial court, most investigations and prosecutions tend to look the same no matter who is in charge. But I have to give credit to the efforts Director Cekada has made and his willingness to discuss the issues behind the reforms openly. That kind of leadership makes a difference.
But leadership changes faster than institutions do. Even small changes can take a long time to fully implement. Overhauling systems and changing the culture will take far longer. Even with all the support, Tate still had to spend more than a year and a half in custody under this administration. Career staff do not turn over with every election, nomination, or confirmation. The statutes and the definitions at the heart of a case like Tate’s have not changed.
Respect for and protection of our Second Amendment rights, like all constitutional rights, should not depend on the administration. No American should be targeted for exercising a constitutional right. Not under the last administration, not under this one, and not under the next. If we have to wonder whether there is a culture of animosity within our government towards the exercise of those rights, then it’s just a permission slip, not a right. The progress we see under Director Cekada so far is encouraging, but we won’t know whether things are materially different within ATF until we see that whatever progress has been made is firmly in place years down the road.
News2A: Are there any additional steps that need to be taken to ensure Tate is able to pass a NICS check going forward?
CW: Federally, the pardon does all the work. A conviction that has been pardoned is not treated as a conviction under the Gun Control Act unless the pardon says otherwise, and Tate’s is full and unconditional. What is left is about record keeping and mechanics, not eligibility. The pardon does not remove the conviction, so the conviction and the pardon will both appear on his record, and background checks run on records. But records don’t update themselves. Each NICS check is its own transaction and the identifying information for an approved transfer is destroyed so there is no permanent approval that carries forward to the next purchase. Delays and mistakes happen, and when they do it is on the purchaser to correct them through the challenge or appeal process. A Voluntary Appeal File usually reduces the chance of a repeat delay, though that requires some more paperwork of its own.
News2A: What would you advise to other gun owners based on your experience in this case?
CW: I’ll start with my usual lawyer caveat: this is general information, not legal advice. Every case is different and the answers depend on the facts of the case. With that said, here are some of the most important basic steps gun owners can take to protect themselves:
- Protect yourself with paperwork. Keep receipts, seller and FFL information, demilitarization documentation, and any written ATF determination, etc. with any item it belongs to. Make copies of everything and keep copies anywhere you store your property. The same goes for any vehicle or range bag you may transport things in. Good faith is much easier to prove when you have supporting documents.
- Stay informed and don’t assume you are protected just because you bought something legally. Have a few trusted resources and stay up to date on the latest firearms news. Be particularly careful with any items that are subject to pending litigation or appeals. An injunction can be overturned. Rules and guidance are subject to change and can be interpreted differently. If ever in doubt, contact an experienced firearms attorney. Those conversations are confidential, and they likely are just as passionate about firearms as you are.
- Leave the arguing to the lawyers. You should not be explaining your collection. If someone disagrees with you about whether something is legal, they usually are not looking for you to change their mind. Honest, law-abiding people can get themselves in trouble by trying to prove a point or explain too much. Being right does not protect you from the time, expenses, and risks of having to defend yourself at trial.
- Exercise all your constitutional rights. You have the right to keep and bear arms. You also have the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. If you are unlucky enough to find yourself being questioned by agents, or worse, clearly and calmly invoke your rights. If you don’t invoke your rights, it is very easy to lose them.
News2A: Please tell our readers about your law firm.
CW: Welch & Wright, PLLC is a full-service criminal defense firm. We’re located in Hampton Roads, with offices in Norfolk and Yorktown, and represent people throughout Virginia in state and federal court. Firearms law is a core part of what we do: defending charges involving firearms at trial, drafting gun trusts, and filing firearm rights restoration petitions.
We take every single one of our clients’ constitutional rights seriously. If you’re facing charges or you’re trying to get your rights back, call us at (757) 707-8803 or visit welchwrightlaw.com.
Every case is different, and no lawyer can promise an outcome. What we can promise is that we will take your rights as seriously as you do.
