On March 16, plaintiffs in Silencer Shop v. Bondi (also known as the “One Big Beautiful Lawsuit”) asked the court to consider recent evidence that the ATF is even now acting in a hostile and retaliatory manner against gun owners in administering its “may issue” licensing scheme under the 1934 National Firearms Act.
The defendants in the case (the Pam Bondi Department of Justice and the ATF) opposed the motion for Leave to File Supplemental Evidence, but the 11-page response to their opposition lays out a clear picture of behavior that is relevant to the case at hand.
On or around February 9, a member of Gun Owners of America was denied a firearm by the ATF for stating “exercise my God given right” as their reason for manufacturing the firearm.
The government claims that the ATF’s denial was a bureaucratic “mistake.” However, it failed to correct this mistake and, as described in the recent brief, did not acknowledge it as such even when brought to their attention: “On the contrary, ATF doubled down, demanding a second time that the GOA member provide ATF a ‘clear, legal reason.'”
Additionally, the ATF continues to characterize the reason for the denial as “based on the vagueness of the GOA member’s answer….”
The plaintiffs make it very clear why this behavior is relevant to the case:
But there is no misimpression, before or now. ATF denied the GOA member’s application because of his answer to Box 4(i). The fact that ATF has now decided to reverse course and stop violating the GOA member’s Second Amendment rights does not mean that those rights were not violated when the denials occurred.
The GOA member was only granted permission from the ATF after he changed his stated reason on Form 1 from “EXERCISE MY GOD GIVEN RIGHT” to “ALL LAWFUL PURPOSES – PROTECT HEARING BETTER” and “FOR ALL LAWFUL USES – PERSONAL AND HOME DEFENSE.”
The ATF then doxxed the applicant on the federal registry by failing to redact his name, city, and state – a move that appears to be retaliatory. “ATF negligently has given would-be criminals this GOA member’s name, his location, and a description of his firearm collection,” stated the brief. The ATF had previously approved other Form 1 applications for this individual.
The brief concludes, “Plaintiffs’ supplemental evidence provides further proof that the National Firearms Act is a discretion-laden ‘may issue’ licensing regime, and their Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority should be granted.”
Silencer Shop v. Bondi was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on July 4, 2025. Plaintiffs filed for summary judgment on October 7, 2025. It is one of three major lawsuits to challenge the legality of the 1934 National Firearms Act given that the excise tax is no longer in effect.
