Supplemental order in Santolla v. Katz confirms statewide injunction against law enforcement in Virginia AWB
ABINGDON, Va. — Gun shops and retailers serving Virginians now have another legal clarification giving them additional relief. The court overseeing the Santolla v. Katz suit issued a July 7 supplemental order expanding and clarifying the previous injunction to ensure Virginians are protected from the state’s weapons ban:
Accordingly, the Court now finds that to afford complete relief to the Plaintiffs herein, the injunction imposed by the Court’s prior ruling shall be extended to statewide application and enjoin all law enforcement agencies of the Commonwealth and its localities, to include law enforcement officers as defined in §9.1-101 of the Code Of Virginia and Commonwealth Attorneys from enforcement of the provisions of the Bans within all localities and jurisdictions of the Commonwealth…
The court amended the effective date to July 21. This move also inspired plaintiffs in one of the other major lawsuits challenging the Virginia ban, McDonald v. Katz, to submit a July 23 memorandum to the court requesting a similar stay. You can read more about the three major lawsuits filed against the state’s weapons and mag ban.
The memorandum adroitly observes that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a historical first-ever “assault weapons” ban case in Viramontes, which will take place at some point in the next term which begins in October.
ATF reports faster processing time for forms
WASHINGTON — In a July 27 post on X, ATF Director Robert Cekada reported that the ATF has substantially reduced processing time for various forms related to firearms activities.
Specifically, he reported that the average time has dropped from 73 days in FY21 to just 18 days today. Form 4 processing has fallen from 150 days to approximately 18 days.
Cekada was appointed as the new director in April, and announced a regulatory reform package of 34 rules. In a recent interview with Jared Yanis, host of Guns and Gadgets, Director Cekada admitted that the ATF’s controversial pistol brace rule, pushed under the previous administration, “…didn’t have the effect that helped us actually reduce violent crime.”
The ATF publishes real-time processing times for all forms on its website.
Civilian Marksmanship Program to offer sale of modified surplus M14 rifles
The Civilian Marksmanship Program will now offer another brainchild of the great inventor John C. Garand for sale directly to civilians: the famed M14 rifle, but with a twist.
The M14 is by design an automatic weapon, and the CMP versions will be “modified to be permanently and irreversibly semi-automatic rifles,” before being offered for sale to civilians sometime in late 2026 or early 2027, according to a statement on their website.
The M14 was designed by John C. Garand, who also famously designed the semi-automatic M1 Garand rifle. The automatic M14, chambered in 7.62, was officially adopted as the U.S. Army’s service rifle in 1957.
The mission of the CMP is to “Promote excellence in marksmanship, firearms safety and youth programs made possible by the secure restoration and sale of historic American firearms.”
Virgin Islands forgot to check its email, argues that DOJ lawsuit is moot
CHARLOTTE AMALIE, U.S. Virgin Islands — A July 24 filing by the U.S. Virgin Islands in response to a lawsuit by the DOJ shows that the counsel in the case has poor attention to basic administrative functions, such as checking email and verifying filings correctly.
The motion also seeks to moot the lawsuit brought by the DOJ in December of 2025 challenging the territory’s gun permit delays. The basis for the request is an updated statute that protects against unconstitutional searches and the admission that the previous “home inspection associated with verifying the installation of a safe were historically overreaching.”
The USVI also offers the we-promise-not-to-do-it-any-more argument, stating, “Furthermore, the VIPD Commissioner, by Declaration dated July 16, 2026, has reaffirmed VIPD’s commitment to discontinuation of practices that are inconsistent with the Second Amendment, Bruen and Heller.”
Last week, the DOJ took another legal action in this case, filing a request for a preliminary injunction against the USVI’s magazine ban based on the Third Circuit’s recent decision in ANJRPC v. Attorney General out of New Jersey.
ATF proposes rule to clarify definition of “business premises” for FFLs
WASHINGTON — As part of its comprehensive reform package, the ATF issued a July 27 notice of proposed rulemaking in which it attempts to clarify what “business premises” means as it relates to manufacturing and importing of firearms under the Gun Control Act.
The proposed rule attempts to resolve regulatory ambiguity by allowing FFLs to apply for and maintain one license for their business if they own or lease more than one property or location that adjoin, touch, or are adjacent to each other and adjoin the same parking lot, sidewalk, or road.
The rule is available for comment on the Federal Register until August 4.
DOJ continues to defend federal restrictions on NFA items in recent Brown v. ATF brief
ST. LOUIS — Though the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Wolford was almost universally seen as a pro-Second Amendment ruling, the Civil Division of the DOJ doesn’t think it should have any impact in the Brown v. ATF case challenging the NFA, according to their July 27 supplemental brief.
Authored by Brett A. Shumate, assistant attorney general of the Civil Division, the brief asserts “In short, Wolford does not meaningfully affect how this Court should resolve plaintiffs’ Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act’s (“NFA”) regulation of short-barreled rifles and suppressors.”
The brief goes on to assert that short-barreled rifles (which we note are completely arbitrary by definition), are not protected by the Second Amendment, or in the government’s words, “As Miller and Heller make clear, ‘the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns,’ – a principle that applies equally to short-barreled rifles.”
The government also continues to improperly apply the Bruen allowance for “some” licensing schemes, stating “Third, as defendants have explained, the Court can reject plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claim because the NFA is a presumptively constitutional shall-issue licensing scheme…”
Plaintiffs in this case moved for summary judgment earlier this year, but courts across the country have asked litigants to brief the court in light of the recent SCOTUS decision, slowing down the proceedings, but also giving pro-Second Amendment groups more ammunition from the land’s highest court.
Colorado court denies state’s request to dismiss lawsuit challenging firearms excise tax
DENVER — There are many attack vectors against the expression of Second Amendment rights, and one favored by blue states is to make it inaccessible via taxation, also known as a ‘sin tax’ (see a related story about the New Jersey sin tax on guns and ammo).
This week, on July 27, a Colorado judge denied the state’s request to dismiss a lawsuit challenging its 2025 6.5% excise tax on the retail sale of firearms, parts, and ammunition.
The original lawsuit was filed on March 31, 2025, just after Proposition KK was signed into law, and includes a local business, Magnum Shooting Center of Colorado Springs, backed by a coalition of gun rights groups. The DOJ Civil Rights Division recently sued both the city of Denver over its AR-15 ban and the State of Colorado over its magazine ban.
DOJ emails show intent to keep portions of “engaged in the business” rule
AMARILLO, Texas — On June 12, a district court vacated the ATF’s “engaged in the business” rule that criminalized certain private sales of firearms.
On the back side of that decision, lawyers from both sides are trying to figure out exactly how the court’s decision should be interpreted.
A series of emails exchanged from July 8-10 between parties in the State of Texas v. ATF case show that the DOJ lawyers intend to ask the court to preserve much of the challenged rule. How much?
“Our position is that all aspects of the Rule which the Court did not specifically decide on the merits in the Final Judgment (and by extension the PI decision) should be preserved,” wrote DOJ counsel, Keri Berman.
In a scathing response on July 27, the gun rights groups backing this case briefed the court with this exhortation:
Defendants now ask this Court to take a scalpel to a Rule that was a cudgel to gun owners. To that end, Defendants vaguely seek to preserve “aspects” of the Rule that they believe were not addressed in this Court’s prior rulings. But they refuse to state which aspects they wish to see un-vacated. Apparently, Defendants expect Plaintiffs – or this Court – to do the long division for them. Not only should this Court deny Defendants’ vague request for that reason alone but, for the reasons that follow, the Rule is not severable in the way Defendants think.
