FBI Director confirms FBI ‘NICS Monitoring’ program to spy on lawful gun sales
WASHINGTON — On Tuesday, September 15, during a Senate Judiciary Committee FBI oversight hearing, Director Kash Patel confirmed the existence of a secret FBI program that was used primarily as a tool to spy on political adversaries.
Senator Cruz asked: “In 2021, Gun Owners of America discovered a secret FBI program called NICS Monitoring, used to track firearms purchases of Americans who were legally eligible to buy a gun, but were suspected of a crime. Is that right?”
Director Patel answered: “Yes.”
The NICS Monitoring program was first publicly documented through GOA’s FOIA work and subsequent reporting, which found that the program operated across the first Trump term, the Biden administration, and into the second Trump term. NICS alerts may only be utilized in cases involving suspected violations of federal firearm statutes, not state-level investigations.
An April 23, 2025 memo from then-Deputy Director Robert Cekada attempted to curtail the illegal use of the program by enforcing a policy requiring that “This investigative technique should not be utilized to primarily investigate state firearm laws,” and requiring requests for NICS alerts beyond six months to require approval from both the deputy director and chief counsel.
But as GOA noted on September 15, “Apparently, this ‘secret FBI program’ to spy on lawful gun purchases is still active. A 2025 memo says that law enforcement just needs [the Deputy Director’s] sign-off.”
On September 17, Director Cekada clapped back in an X post asserting that the program “is managed very well by the FBI,” and adding, “This is NOT a secret program.”
GOA responded to the director, stating, “Unfortunately, there are 2 false statements & 3 misleading statements in @ATFDirectorRC’s post about the FBI’s warrantless ‘NICS Monitoring’ program,” going on to document each issue in detail.
The revelation of this program, even under Republican administrations, speaks to the deeply entrenched bureaucratic state of unelected officials who are hostile to the freedoms and liberties of American citizens.
Gun rights groups file amici brief with Supreme Court in national reciprocity case
WASHINGTON — States’ rights are a two-edged sword, allowing states to resist overstep from federal authority, but – in the case of Second Amendment liberties – creating a patchwork of gun control regulations and permit requirements that effectively prevent citizens from equally exercising their rights across the country, absent an equally complex and expensive collection of permits.
To that end, on August 24, 2026, petitioner Jeffrey M. Johnson, Sr. filed a petition to the Supreme Court asking it to hear Johnson v. Jacobson, a case concerning a long-haul trucker who has carry permits issued by Florida and Georgia, but is unable to travel through Minnesota armed because the state does not recognize his Florida and Georgia permits.
In a significant show of support, a who’s who of gun rights groups filed an amici curiae brief in support of Mr. Johnson’s case on September 15, providing significant historical background on the complicated subject.
Interstate visitors are Americans, yet states like Minnesota treat them like suspect foreigners that need to be re-vetted before exercising a fundamental right. The burden of this abuse falls most heavily on someone like the Petitioner, whose job as a long-haul truck driver consists of traveling constantly between the states. It is completely unreasonable to demand that he maintain permits in each state he travels through.
Framing the case within the Bruen test, the brief points out that historical “traveler’s exception” laws – of which there are dozens – point to a precedent contrary to today’s approach of state-approved permitting.
Historically, travelers from other places were given more leeway than locals and were exempted from concealed carry restrictions. Dozens of historical “traveler’s exception” laws dating from the colonial era through the 19th Century confirm this tradition. In fact, it is a more well-represented historical tradition than the surety regimes and affrays this Court previously cited to uphold.
The counsel of record is Kostas Moros, with the Second Amendment Foundation. The amici named in the brief include: Second Amendment Foundation; National Rifle Association of America; California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated; Second Amendment Law Center; Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
San Jose rolls the dice on excessive permit fees, DOJ files suit as promised
SAN JOSE, Calif. — The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division gave San Jose until September 15 to come to the table and negotiate a resolution to its excessive permitting fees. That date came and went with no response from the city, so on September 16, as promised, the DOJ filed its suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, United States of America v. San Jose.
In announcing the lawsuit on her X account on September 16, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon stated, “The [city of San Jose] thinks they can charge $1600 for concealed carry permits and violate their citizens’ 2A rights. Wrong! The [Civil Rights Division] and [Justice Department] will see you in court.”
The lawsuit invokes the narrowly allowed permitting schemes referenced in Bruen:
In Bruen, the Supreme Court held that “may-issue” licensing schemes violated the Second Amendment because the there is no tradition of “broadly prohibiting public carry of commonly used firearms for self-defense” nor a tradition of “limiting public carry only to those law-abiding citizens who demonstrate a special need for self-defense.” The Court blessed shall-issue schemes because their “narrow, objective, and definite standards” did “not necessarily prevent ‘law-abiding, responsible citizens’ from exercising” Second Amendment rights. Yet, the Court immediately cautioned against “regimes where . . . exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.” Defendants’ permitting scheme is exactly that.
See our updated timeline and DOJ Action Tracker, where we catalog every legal action of the DOJ as it relates to Second Amendment activities.
NSSF releases congressional 2A report card; New Jersey fails
NEWTOWN, Conn. — On September 16, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), which bills itself as the firearms industry trade association, issued its 2026 Congressional Report Card which grades “sitting U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators on key legislation that is of critical importance to the firearm industry.”
The ratings are important to both pro-gun and anti-gun representatives alike, with some bragging about their scores, especially as the country heads into the politically charged midterm elections.
As expected, New Jersey representatives (with a couple of exceptions) all received failing scores:
U.S. Senate (New Jersey)
- Cory Booker (D): F
- Andy Kim (D): F
U.S. House (New Jersey)
- NJ-01 Donald Norcross (D): F
- NJ-02 Jefferson Van Drew (R): B+
- NJ-03 Herbert Conaway (D): F
- NJ-04 Christopher Smith (R): B+
- NJ-05 Josh Gottheimer (D): F
- NJ-06 Frank Pallone (D): F
- NJ-07 Thomas Kean (R): B-
- NJ-08 Robert Menendez (D): F
- NJ-09 Nellie Pou (D): F
- NJ-10 LaMonica McIver (D): F
- NJ-11 Analilia Mejia (D): F
- NJ-12 Bonnie Watson Coleman (D): F
President Trump signs executive order expanding access to federal land for hunting
WASHINGTON — On September 17, President Trump signed an executive order entitled “Reinvigorating America’s Hunting Heritage,” which directs the secretary of the interior to expand hunting opportunities in select federal lands, including public land that was landlocked by private property.
The order also directs authorities “to identify, clarify, and prioritize opportunities and incentives to cultivate the hunting tradition in young Americans and veterans using existing Federal funding and authorities.”
Earlier this year, 25 House Republicans wrote a joint letter to Secretary of the Army Daniel P. Driscoll, to request that the U.S. Army end its gun ban on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-managed land, comprising 11.7 million acres. The secretary never publicly responded to the inquiry, and so far the gun-ban policy has not changed.
