ATF Mentions Yet Another Update to the Challenged Frames and Receivers Rule
In an example of changing horses mid-stream, the ATF intends to change a rule regarding the definition of “firearms,” “frames,” and “receivers” even as that rule is being challenged in court.
The case is VanDerStok v. Bondi (formerly VanDerStok v. Garland), heard before the Supreme Court in October of 2024, and was reversed and remanded back to the Fifth Circuit in a 7-2 decision, which found that the so-called “ghost gun” rule was not facially inconsistent with the 1968 GCA.
In the April 2 Joint Status Report filing before the Texas District Court, the brief states, “ATF has advised that it plans to take agency action to amend the challenged rule. This development may materially affect the nature of the parties’ claims and defenses.”
White House Budget Shows a Surprising Pro-2A Agenda, Reversing Previous Positions
The 2027 budget proposal released by the White House on April 3 shows a surprisingly positive agenda that embraces many pro-2A measures while dialing back attacks from previous administrations against gun owners (which we documented extensively here).
Included in the new budget:
- $4.8 million for the Office of the Pardon Attorney’s Firearm Rights Restoration Initiative
- Reversal of ATF regulations imposed by prior administrations
- Supports pistol brace ownership
- Supports homemade firearm manufacturing
- Opposes “near-universal background check” rule
- Cracks down on violent crime, such as MS-13 gang members
New York Federal Judge Gives Law Enforcement a Pass but Not the Man Trying to Keep the Spirit of the Law
A New York federal judge started his April 6 decision by stating, “Law enforcement is a profession where mistakes are bound to happen…. But not every mistake or disruption is a civil rights violation.” However, gun owners are virtually never given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to prosecutions.
A permit holder was arrested, detained, forced to surrender his firearms, and had his licenses suspended because he put his firearm in a glovebox so as not to enter a “sensitive place” while armed. The court decision noted that “none of the officers on the scene knew what a ‘business carry’ firearm license was.” He sued after the fact for having his constitutional rights violated, but the judge dismissed the suit.
Judge Benitez Retires – Patron Saint of the Second Amendment
Judge Roger Thomas Benitez (often referred to as “Saint Benitez”) retired on April 2, 2026. He served on the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (based in San Diego), having been appointed in 2004 by President George W. Bush.
The judge was a particular supporter of the Second Amendment and, among other things:
- Struck down CA’s ammo background check (2025)
- Struck down CA’s “assault weapons” ban (2021/23)
- Struck down CA’s “high-cap” magazine ban (2019)
A true fighter for constitutional liberties, he famously said:
There is only one policy enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Guns and ammunition in the hands of criminals, tyrants and terrorists are dangerous; guns in the hands of law-abiding responsible citizens are necessary. To give full life to the core right of self defense, every law-abiding responsible individual citizen has a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear firearms commonly owned and kept for lawful purposes.
“Is the Sky Blue?” and “Are Suppressors Arms?” – Another Installment of Questions That Children Can Answer but the ATF Cannot
In an April 7 filing in a Firearms Policy Coalition-backed case challenging the NFA, Brown v. ATF, the government vacillates on whether or not suppressors are arms, with a fence-riding admission that:
…while suppressors may not be “Arms,” government restrictions on the use of suppressors trigger Second Amendment scrutiny when those restrictions burden Second Amendment rights.
Yet, in United States v. Peterson, the government also adopted the position in which they “assume without deciding that suppressors constitute ‘arms’ under the Second Amendment.”
The supplemental brief, signed by Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate, concludes that, “In light of Bruen and its lower court progeny, the NFA’s regulatory scheme is presumptively constitutional with respect to the weapons it covers, including short-barreled rifles and suppressors.”
Pennsylvania Seeks to Become 30th Constitutional Carry State, but Bill is Stuck in Committee
Pennsylvania aims to become the 30th constitutional carry state with a bill sponsored by Sen. Cris Dush (R-25) and backed by a number of Republican co-sponsors. (Currently, a permit is required for concealed carry, though open carry is generally allowed with some local restrictions.)
Senate Bill 357 (and its companion House Bill 454) would:
- Repeal the requirement for a license to carry a concealed firearm
- Remove related restrictions (e.g., in Philadelphia)
- Provide for a voluntary “sportsman’s firearm permit”
- Affirm the right to carry openly or concealed without a permit for eligible law-abiding citizens
Both bills remain pending in their respective Judiciary Committees and do not appear to have any forward momentum.
Public Hearing on Rhode Island Bill to Ban Possession of Firearms Reveals Lawmakers Are Willing to Trample Many Constitutional Principles
In early March, Rhode Island reversed course and stated that it would remove the grandfathering clause allowing residents to keep firearms under their “assault weapons” ban. No one at this publication was surprised because we are students of history.
On April 8, the legislature held a public hearing in the House Judiciary Committee on H 8073, which adds the word “possess” to the prohibition. After the December 31 deadline, it would become a felony for anyone in Rhode Island to possess these firearms.
The testimony from legislators suggests that they are willing to violate the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments in order to further this possession ban. This publication has stated numerous times that we need a new way forward that penalizes lawmakers for introducing unconstitutional measures.
Tennessee Legislature Reconsidering Two Important Pro-Gun Measures
On April 8, the Tennessee Senate Judiciary Committee met to reconsider two critical pro-2A bills that had been originally pushed to 2027, including:
- A measure allowing law-abiding students and others to carry firearms on university and college campuses for self-defense.
- Repealing the state’s 200-year-old “Intent to Go Armed” statute that makes it a crime to carry a firearm or club with intent to go armed. The statute was struck down by a Tennessee court but is still being defended by the Governor and AG.
According to reports, both measures have a state sponsor, but the committee must vote to move them forward.
