ATF proposes new record-keeping rules, but fails to address advancing technologies
WASHINGTON — A July 6 post by the ATF proposed some new record-retention rules addressing the duration of the retention period. The underlying tension from the perspective of the gun-owner’s community is the ATF’s ability to access records during a specific criminal investigation, while simultaneously complying with the 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), which prohibits “…any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.”
The ATF fails to clearly explain how they are avoiding the “registry” in the context of the explicit exception. The claim is that records are stored as images without optical character recognition and thus are “non-searchable.” But the images contain personal information and in fact, comprise a registry (even if unsearchable), and importantly fails to address the application of modern technologies, like AI, that can easily make it searchable.
The proposed rule is available for comment until August 4 on the Federal Register.
Virginia court refuses to consolidate cases challenging Virginia “assault weapons” ban
RICHMOND, Va. — On July 6, a three-judge panel appointed by the Virginia Supreme Court denied the Commonwealth’s motion to consolidate multiple cases challenging new gun control laws.
The cases affected include:
- Santolla v. Katz (Washington County)
- Crump v. Katz (Lancaster County)
- Curtis v. Katz (Spotsylvania County)
- Black v. Hook (Fauquier County)
This bodes well for gun owners in that it allows existing preliminary injunctions to stand, forces the state to litigate on multiple fronts, and suggests that the courts are not automatically aligned with politics in Richmond.
In its order, the panel stated that “The Commonwealth has not met the burden of showing the necessary factors to grant the application,” and also pointed out that “It is too late to properly prevent inconsistent rulings.”
The Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department filed its own separate lawsuit against Virginia on July 1.
Hawaii gun rights group publishes open letter to businesses and business owners
HONOLULU — At the end of June, the Supreme Court struck down Hawaii’s private property carry ban in a decision that will impact blue states around the country as far as how they are able to legally address the presumption of gun bans on property open to the public.
While blue states make a fuss about “public safety” and the proliferation of arms into the public square, a Hawaii gun rights group is asking Hawaiian business owners to consider a completely different question: “While signs don’t stop criminals, they do stop the law-abiding; do you want to lose these friends and neighbors as customers?”
It’s a question worth asking, since it has the potential to affect a significant portion of the Hawaiian population. Read the Hawaii Firearms Coalition’s open letter here.
ATF puts forth rule to define “willfully” as it relates to violations of Gun Control Act
WASHINGTON — The ATF has recently put forth some controversial rules for comment, which are part of its historic reform package, announced in April.
One includes the silly July 2 determination that the “BolaWrap 150” is not a firearm.
However, a far more concerning act is the July 7 announcement of a proposed rule that would define “willfully” for firearms violations. “Willfully” was defined by Congress within the Gun Control Act, but here the ATF is attempting to revise the rule slightly in favor of gun owners to prevent undue revocation of licenses.
However, ATF definitions can be revised, reversed, and abused based upon the administration in office and its orientation towards the Second Amendment, as history has shown. These definitions ought to be addressed by courts.
The rule is available for comment on the Federal Register until August 6.
En banc Third Circuit invites Cheeseman parties to brief in light of Wolford
PHILADELPHIA — On Monday, July 6, the Third Circuit invited parties in ANJRPC v. Platkin (now consolidated into Cheeseman v. Platkin) to submit supplemental briefs “that addresses the impact, if any, of the United States Supreme Court’s opinions in Wolford v. Lopez.”
However, the parties have only four days to submit briefs, which are due July 10, cannot exceed 1,500 words, and the court adamantly stated that “no extensions of time or length will be granted absent truly exceptional circumstances,” suggesting that it may be very close to rendering its decision in the New Jersey “assault weapons” ban challenge.
Just one day after the Supreme Court struck down Hawaii’s private property default ban in Wolford on June 25, the plaintiffs wrote to the court to advise it how to interpret the “in common use” doctrine as it relates to Bruen.
Police state alive and well in New York – court affirms 2nd Amendment violations
On July 7, a United States district court in New York issued a motion for summary judgment in favor of a New York couple, affirming the violation of their Second Amendment rights after being disarmed by the government for over three years.
The story illustrates both the unbounded overreach afforded to law enforcement and the casual treatment of Second Amendment rights in blue states like New York.
The Wysocki family (father and mother, who both held concealed carry licenses) was disarmed by Nassau County police officers after a child protective services visit subsequent to their daughter threatening self-harm. Even though the firearms in the home were locked up, and a doctor’s evaluation indicated no “imminent danger to self or others,” the police suspended the couple’s licenses and forced them to surrender their guns.
The court concluded, “Defendants [the state] present zero evidence that the PLS’s actions are consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. They provide no citation to law, tradition, or any other evidence, nor do they provide a particular historical analogy to match the practices employed against the Wysockis.”
The Wysockis are waiting for an injunction for the return of their firearms and the reinstatement of their licenses. The story also underscores the critical importance of carrying some kind of legal insurance to cover litigation in cases where unlawful disarmament occurs.
California’s 140-page “Strategic Plan” pushes more gun control initiatives at cost of $110 million
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — On July 8, the California Department of Justice “Office of Gun Violence Prevention” published a 140-page report of recommendations ostensibly aimed at “gun violence,” but which in reality is a laundry list of unconstitutional gun control measures wrapped in narratives of “public safety.”
The report calls for spending $110 million of taxpayer dollars over five years to implement 74 specific recommendations, many of which are already familiar to the gun owner community and have been found to be unconstitutional by courts.
The measures include more “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” or red-flag confiscation laws, a stricter list of prohibitions that could include hospitalization in another state, attacks on homemade weapons (an American tradition that is legal in most of the country), even stricter background checks based upon fingerprints, not names, and “firearm industry oversight,” a catchy phrase for administrative burdens designed to put dealers and manufacturers out of business. The report also targets “uniquely dangerous weapons” and forces storage requirements on individuals in their homes.
As a whole, the report is full of propaganda language using “data” as an objective way of furthering a mass-scale implementation of gun control measures that will only disarm the law-abiding.
Virginia judge extends injunction statewide in challenge to assault weapons/carry ban
ABINGDON, Va. — Washington County Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey L. Campbell announced he is extending the scope of an injunction originally issued on June 29 to be statewide, effective July 21.
The July 8 announcement comes after the state requested, and was flat-out denied, to have the four major lawsuits challenging its recent “assault weapon” and carry ban consolidated into one case just days earlier.
The news of this extension came through an X post by the Virginia Citizens Defense League, the state-level gun rights group that has been closely following these developments.
ATF proposes removing requirement for “Youth Handgun Safety Act” notice
WASHINGTON — After 30 years, the ATF has “reevaluated the 1998 final rule and concludes that requiring FFLs to provide notice unnecessarily burdens FFLs.”
Juveniles are not permitted to possess a handgun or ammunition, yet FFLs were forced for decades to post YHSA signs at their licensed premises and provide each handgun purchaser with a written notice.
The ATF posted the proposed rule in a July 8 X post. The rule itself is available for comment on the Federal Register until August 6, 2026.
Gun Owners of America sues Pennsylvania for gun bans over minor drug offenses
PITTSBURGH — On July 7, Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation backed a plaintiff in a lawsuit (Philips v. Bivens) targeting Pennsylvania’s ban on firearms carry for those convicted of minor drug offenses.
The lawsuit leans on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hemani, specifically as it applies to the litigant and his misdemeanor offense of possessing a small amount of marijuana.
We expect to see many such lawsuits across the country as gun rights groups uphold the rights of non-violent criminals in light of the Supreme Court’s decision.
In a July 8 press release, Gun Owners Foundation stated:
In Hemani, the Supreme Court struck down a drug-related federal firearm prohibition as unconstitutional. The high court noted that the Founders lived in a “culture of copious drinking” and never disarmed regular drinkers unless they were shown to be actively dangerous. The Court warned that giving the government “broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun… would quickly swallow the Second Amendment.”
Together with the landmark Bruen framework, the Hemani decision places an insurmountable historical burden on Pennsylvania to justify stripping peaceable, otherwise eligible gun owners of their carry rights over decades-old, nonviolent conduct.
ATF to withdraw rule based upon influx of public comments
WASHINGTON — The ATF is universally despised, but under this leadership they are at least listening to those who make the effort to share their voice.
Over the last couple of months the ATF has been sharing numerous rules and proposed rule changes that are part of their historic reform package announced in April under Director Robert Cekada.
One such rule, related to “Licensee ‘eZ Check’ Verification,” received so many adverse comments that the ATF announced on July 8 that it is withdrawing the rule completely. This underscores the importance of engaging with the ATF as an individual.
ATF proposes major updates to Form 4473, the form for most firearms transactions
WASHINGTON — On July 10, the ATF announced a number of proposed changes to the ubiquitous Form 4473, the form that governs most firearms transactions and transfers.
The changes largely fall into the administrative category, attempting to make the form more user-friendly by making it electronic, using auto-fill functions and allowing digital ID where possible.
The rule also expands the list of identification documents that can be used and doubles the valid time period for background checks, from 30 days to two months.
The proposed rule is available for comment in the Federal Register until August 6, 2026.
Plaintiffs and Attorney General submit supplemental briefings in New Jersey “assault weapons” and magazine ban case
PHILADELPHIA — On July 10, both the New Jersey Attorney General and the plaintiffs in the now-combined ANJRPC v. Attorney General case submitted their briefs addressing the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Wolford and Hemani as they relate to the challenge to New Jersey’s “assault weapons” and “high-capacity” magazines bans.
It comes as no surprise that AG Davenport continues to defend the state’s position, stating in the brief that, “That is dispositive here: there is a longstanding and diverse tradition of regulating unusually dangerous firearms – that is, weapons whose features are disproportionately dangerous compared to their civilian self-defense uses.”
In addition to the brief submitted by AG Davenport, the brief submitted by ANJRPC can be found here.
The supplemental brief submitted by counsel for the Cheeseman/FPC plaintiffs can be found here.
The court issued its text-only order on July 6, inviting the parties in the consolidated cases to file supplemental briefs by July 10 at noon, with a 1,500-word limit. The abbreviated timeframe provided suggests the Third Circuit could deliver its decision in this case at any time, as the case was reheard on October 15, 2025.
