District Court Demands More Information Regarding Suit Against NFA
Brown v. ATF is one of three major lawsuits challenging the NFA subsequent to Congress eliminating the $200 excise tax on suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs. The suit was filed on August 1, 2025, in the Eastern District of Missouri. On Tuesday, March 24, Chief Judge Stephen R. Clark issued an order requiring supplemental briefing on several key issues:
Plaintiffs must file supplemental briefs no later than March 31, 2026. Defendants must respond no later than April 7, 2026. And Plaintiffs may file a reply no later than April 14, 2026. Briefs must be no longer than 20 pages.
Federal Judge Says “No” to the Sisters
On March 23, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against Smith & Wesson brought by four Catholic religious orders (Adrian Dominican Sisters, Sisters of Bon Secours USA, Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia, and Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary).
The religious orders collectively filed the suit as shareholders, alleging that Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc., and the company’s Board of Directors and senior officers, breached their fiduciary duties and “allowed the company to become exposed to significant liability for intentionally violating federal, state, and local laws through its manufacturing, marketing, and sales of semi-automatic firearms…”
The irony here is that the religious orders brought the suit as “shareholders” wanting one of America’s most popular firearms manufacturers to stop selling products – an action that would be contrary to their interest as shareholders.
The suit was dismissed primarily because it did not meet the threshold for “Demand Futility” under Nevada law. Additionally, the judge ordered the Plaintiffs to post a security bond in the amount of $500,000 within 14 days of the order, or the action would be dismissed without prejudice.
Minnesota Pushing Liability Insurance for Gun Owners – Take ACTION Below!
The Minnesota Legislature is advancing a bill that would require firearm owners to carry at least $100,000 in liability insurance specifically covering firearm-related incidents. A similar measure was attempted and struck down in New Jersey, mostly for the fact that insurance companies do not cover intentional acts, such as self-defense.
House File (HF) 3938 was introduced on March 5, 2026 and referred to the House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee. Senate File (SF) 4231 is the Senate companion bill.
Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus has created an ACTION page to stop the insurance mandate with pre-filled fields and a form allowing residents to contact their representatives.
D.C. Court of Appeals Denies District’s Request to Suspend Precedential Status of 2A Victory
On March 6, the District of Columbia’s highest court overturned a magazine ban conviction and related possession charges, ruling that D.C.’s high-capacity magazine restrictions are unconstitutional. The decision was precedential, meaning it set a legal standard other courts must adhere to.
That sent the district into a tailspin. They appealed to the court with an emergency motion to remove the precedential status of the order, and on March 23, the court denied that motion, leaving the precedential status in place. That decision may now be referenced in states like New Jersey, which have ongoing challenges to similar restrictions.
FPC and Second Amendment Foundation File Suit Over Firearms Ban at Federal Facilities in National Parks
A private citizen, Gary Zimmerman, has filed suit along with Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation, against the Bondi DOJ. They are challenging the federal ban on firearms in “federal facilities” operated by the National Park Service. That would include visitor centers, ranger stations, and fee collection buildings.
The nine-page complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. It cites the 2022 Bruen decision and reminds the court that the onus is on the government to defend such restrictions:
“When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
This should be an easy lawsuit for the Bondi DOJ to choose to not contest. Time will tell.
