The official announcement this week that the Department of Justice won’t appeal the District Court ruling that NFA regulation of suppressors and short-barrel long guns is unconstitutional is a big win for all of us, and worth celebrating. But slow your roll.
I wouldn’t treat the enjoined NFA provisions as permanently defeated. They’re really just in cryosleep.
They can return in one of two ways:
1. A future Congress can restore the tax, even if it’s just one dollar. That would restore the argument that the NFA is an exercise in Congress’s taxing power. We only won the Jensen case based on that taxing power question. The court didn’t rule on any Second Amendment implications of the NFA.
2. Because we only have a District Court win here, a future administration could simply announce that they disagree with the ruling and enforce the enjoined provisions elsewhere. Gun rights orgs and plaintiffs will then sue (or back a criminal defendant), and then we’ll have to see what the circuits have to say.
This is why I really wanted a Fifth Circuit ruling on what the District Court judge decided here. If the Fifth Circuit had ruled the same way, at least we’d then have a circuit split set up ahead of time when another anti-gun Circuit upholds the NFA down the road.
So enjoy your easy-to-buy suppressors and SBR’s while you can. This may not last as long as we’d all hope.
Kostas Moros is Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation.
I’ve been saying this very thing for 2 years…and have done so on this site more than once. We are just one election away from going back to the way things were.
Nice too see someone else finally realized it….
FLOCK CAMERAS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL in Major Federal Case.
A federal judge has granted a motion to suppress after ruling that warrantless use of an automated license plate reader network to access a month of historical vehicle-location data violated the Fourth Amendment. We break down United States v. Kyle, the Flock surveillance issue, the traffic stop, and why this ruling could matter far beyond Oklahoma.
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsDOPgIgCqg
Actually, the one stop by itself was ruled unconstitutional because the LEO’s only reason for searching Flock was that he saw a California license plate and lacked any substantial probable cause. Everything else that happened afterward was dismissed as being under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” principle.
The judge did not rule in that specific case that Flock in its entirety is unconstitutional, so the title in your post is misleading. The larger topic of Flock’s general use is under an entirely different legal challenge under the “mosaic” principle.
I just use the title from the posted video.
Hmmmm… no.
The stop was not ruled unconstitutional, it was ruled (on a separate and independent ground) the deputy unlawfully prolonged the traffic stop. The traffic stop itself was upheld as justified at its inception under 47 O.S. 11-310, Oklahoma’s following-too-closely statute, because roughly 30 feet separated the two vehicles. Its what happened when the stop was unlawfully prolonged that’s the issue.
The judge granted the motion motion to suppress after ruling that warrantless use of an automated license plate reader network to access a month of historical vehicle-location data from (ALPR AKA flock cameras) violated the Fourth Amendment.
The evidence was suppressed: The federal judge granted a motion to suppress on October 1, 2026, holding that a sheriff’s deputy conducted a Fourth Amendment search when he queried a month of historical license plate reader data without a warrant. As a result all evidence from the resulting traffic stop was suppressed.
Also from the ruling – [case = United States v. Kyle, No. 4:26-cr-00189-SEH.]:
“This is a type of indiscriminate mass surveillance. It is not targeted on a single individual, as in Carpenter. It is a tool that collects information about all vehicles that pass by any network-connected camera at all times, and it serves up the information to law enforcement on demand.”
[note: the ‘government’, in this case a county government, indiscriminate mass surveillance is a violation of the fourth amendment]
Id. at 34…
“The Court finds that because the ALPR systems Alaniz used to search Kyle’s historical location information intruded on her reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of her physical movements, it was a search under the Fourth Amendment. Based on the information in the record, the only reason Alaniz conducted that search was because he saw her license plate was from California. That search was not supported by probable cause, and it was done without a warrant in violation of Kyle’s Fourth Amendment rights.”
We’re splitting hairs here.
You’re correct that the judge found that the LEO’s reason for the stop (following too closely to the vehicle in front) was allowable, albeit thinly applied. But the additional facts and arguments submitted led the judge to eventually conclude that stop had progressed to a violation of the defendant’s (Mr. Kyle) Fourth Amendment right, and therefore unconstitutional. So you’re technically correct that the initial reason for the stop as stated by the LEO was (again, thinly allowed per the judge) legal per Oklahoma law, but that same judge then found that the LEO had used it as a “foot in the door” to proceed in an unconstitutional direction, thereby nullifying the entire stop.
“We’re splitting hairs here.”
No. You’re splitting hairs. I just stated what happened.
Oh my. Methinks that our Booger is perturbed. I wonder if this will affect his attempt to turn SNW’s comments sections into his personal Drudge Report.
Judge Shoots Down Union Pacific’s Arkansas Gun Law End-Run.
ht* tps://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/union-pacific-arkansas-gun-law/
15 states still require a Form 4 for suppressors due to state law – that’s 30% of the country. So even if you were covered by this ruling, for example, as a member of one of the plaintiff orgs, and live in or enter one of those 15 states you are still required to do the form 4 to simply posses (by ownership) to comply with that states law or become a felon under that states law. Yeah, you read that right – if you have gotten a suppressor as part of the case and did not do a form 4 as a result and only transferred on a 4473 and live in a state that does not require a form 4, and you travel to a state that does require a form 4 to posses a suppressor and have that suppressor with you in that form 4 state you become a felon under that states laws. Then if you live in that form 4 state and are a member of one of the plaintiff orgs nothing has changed for you at all and you are still required to do the form 4 to comply with state law. Even if the DOJ/ATF came out right now and said “Good news, no more form 4’s for anyone and suppressors can be transferred on a 4473!” if you live in or travel to a state that requires a form 4 for possession you still have to do the form 4 for possession in that state so the NFA case did nothing for those people.
So basically, compared to the rest of the country and in consideration of those not covered from the form 4 BS – although in terms of the NFA its self it was a major victory, but for the gun community at large nationwide its only a select special interest victory.
[note: maybe not a felony in some of these states, maybe its a misdemeanor of some type. But the point is you would be in violation of that states law.]
It seems that there are a whole lot of so called “freedom” folks, who really don’t understand just how you get, and then keep freedom.
Simply saying liberty requires Eternal vigilance doesn’t mean you use threats of violence.
You vote at every election. Study the issues and candidate s. Make an informed vote each time.
And do you really want your 2A rights? Or do you really want a h0m0sezu@l or an atheist or a black or some other skin color to vote for?
Go ahead and vote for the anti-war candidate who has also, openly said the 2A is not an individual civil right.
You have the freedom to choose. For a little while longer.