TX: Judge Takes Sledgehammer To National Firearms Act

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the National Firearms Act (NFA) no longer applies to suppressors and other items whose taxes were reduced to $0 in July 2025.

United States District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas, a Trump appointee, granted a motion for summary judgement from attorneys representing the Silencer Shop Foundation Wednesday. In the 66-page opinion, Hendrix said that because taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and other items had been reduced to $0 by legislation signed by President Donald Trump in July 2025, the registration and paperwork imposed by the NFA exceeded Congress’ authority under the taxation power.

“In 2025, Congress eliminated the NFA’s transfer and making taxes for four categories of firearms: short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and a final, defined group of miscellaneous firearms,” Hendrix wrote. “Because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from untaxed firearms, its regulatory provisions cannot be upheld under the taxing power. And there is no sign in the NFA’s text, structure, or statutory history that Congress invoked any other power in crafting the NFA provisions at issue. Thus, the regulatory provisions must be enjoined as unconstitutional because they exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.”

After the Senate parliamentarian struck language that removed those items from NFA’s purview, Congress reduced the taxes to $0.

Continue reading “”

Gun Control Doesn’t Stop Mass Shootings, It Helps Mass Killers

We’re probably going to spill a lot of digital ink talking about the shooting in Twin Falls, ID. That’s to be expected following a high-profile shooting that claims people’s lives. This time, though, while we mourn the loss of life, we’re also able to celebrate the fact that it wasn’t worse.

Good guys with guns stop massacres, often before they can become a “mass shooting” by various definitions.

Still, in the wake of these massacres, anti-gunners routinely demand gun control. Yet, as Victor Joecks notes at the Las Vegas Review-Journal, gun control hurts the good guys, not the killers.

It’s possible to stop mass shooters, but not if the gun grabbers get their way….

After a 2021 shooting at the Boise Towne Square mall, Salinas started training with a firearm in earnest. He provides full-time care for his brother, who’s in a wheelchair. Salinas believed a gunman would look for “soft targets” — such as a man in a wheelchair and his caregiver.

He refused to be one and ended up saving numerous lives.

Think about what would have happened if gun-control advocates had been able to enact new restrictions after the 2021 Boise shooting. They would have made it harder for Salinas to obtain the weapon he used to stop this mass shooting. That’s because new gun laws have the greatest effect on the least dangerous people. People are alive today because Idaho has firearm freedom.

Don’t expect a national debate on these trade-offs. The propaganda press has a predictable rubric for how much coverage mass shootings receive. If the villain or narrative can be tied to conservatives, it’ll be a major story. If the villain is connected to the left, it’ll be a story about guns. If the shooting is inconvenient to gun grabbers, it’ll disappear. And if it involves gangs, it won’t even make the national news. Another example of inverse journalism.

It’s not intentional, but mass shooters have no stronger allies than gun-control advocates.

And let’s understand just what that last sentence really means.

One of the most popular talking points among anti-gunners is that modern sporting rifles are the most popular choice for would-be mass killers. On Tuesday, though, Cam wrote about an FBI report looking at active shooters. That report noted that 53 percent of shooters used a handgun. Rifles were only used in a third of the attacks.

So, it would seem that handguns are still the preferred weapon for these people, despite what anti-gunners would have you believe. Assault weapon bans wouldn’t help.

Meanwhile, these same people want to make it as difficult as possible for people like Jordan Salinas to carry a firearm. They wanted the vampire rule in place, which would probably have forced Salinas to either ignore the law or disarm, had it been in place in Idaho. Especially since it’s unlikely an In-and-Out place is going to announce guns are welcome.

They oppose the Bruen decision, which, among other things, killed “may issue” permitting. They’d prefer to see someone like Salinas have to prove a need to carry a firearm, and the seemingly unlikely chance that a massacre was going to take place in front of him would probably have been unpersuasive to many.

Honestly, the list could go on. I could probably write an entire book about all the gun control propositions that would have protected actual mass killers if anti-gunners got their way.

Luckily, they haven’t.

It’s up to us to make sure they never do.

Escalating Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense

An armed attacker entered a restaurant in Cerritos, California. A good guy with a gun stopped a bad guy with a knife. That simple description covers an interesting story.

What we know- The crazy guy with a knife stole a truck from a young woman. He damaged the truck and dumped the vehicle in a shopping center. The crazy guy then ran into a nearby restaurant. He ran into the kitchen and food-preparation area. The attacker was already bleeding from a self-inflicted knife wound to his neck. The attacker threatened the restaurant staff. The staff ran out the back door of the kitchen and also ran out of the kitchen and into the dining area.

One of the customers sitting in the dining area was a gun owner. He had his California permit to legally carry his personal firearm concealed in public. He was armed that day. He was armed in the restaurant. He defended himself and other innocent parties.

The defender stood up and presented his firearms. He shouted “Stop! Drop the knife!” The attacker turned toward the defender and advanced with the knife in his hands. The defender shot the attacker. The attacker stopped advancing and fell to the ground. The defender stopped shooting. The defender remained at the scene and gave a statement to the police.

Let’s take a closer at what happened.

  • This was the middle of the afternoon on a weekday.
  • The defender stood up rather than retreating to a position of concealment and cover. That was the first rung on the use-of-force ladder. He said ‘I’m here and I see you.’
  • The defender presented his firearm. Now, both the attacker and the defender had weapons in their hands.
  • The defender issued a verbal challenge. He yelled “Stop!”
  • The attacker initiated the conflict by closing the distance to the defender.
  • The defender recognized an immediate, lethal, and unavoidable threat. Read those three terms carefully. All three must be present to justify the use of lethal force in self-defense. The defender did not have time to think and evaluate. He did have time to recognize a situation he had already considered and classified.
  • The defender used lethal force to stop the threat. The armed defender stopped using lethal force when it was no longer justified to do so. That could happen before the first shot, or after he fired every shot in the gun’s magazine.
  • The defender wore the mantle of innocence. He stayed at the scene. He holstered his firearm. He called the police or asked someone else to do so. He gave a statement to the police and cooperated in collecting evidence of what happened.

There is a lot more we want the good guy to do. Unfortunately, those sort of details aren’t covered in most news sources. Let’s speculate about what we might want to do.

Most attackers who use a weapon against innocent people are high or drunk. Don’t expect sane behavior from a crazy person.
Ask people to stay down. You don’t know if the attacker is a crazy person acting alone, or part of a robbery team. It might not be safe to stand and move around.
Can you take the knife or gun away from the wounded attacker without exposing yourself to danger? There are entire class segments devoted to how to secure a weapon that was used in a crime. When in doubt, leave that to the police.
Ask if anyone else is hurt and needs assistance. Is there a cook who was cut and is lying on the floor of the kitchen? Was one of the restaurant customers hurt when they dove for the floor? Was anyone else hurt by the shot you fired? The emergency response system might need to roll several teams if there are a number of injured victims.
Ask everyone to call 911. That gives the 911 system a list of cell phone numbers that were in the restaurant when the attack happened. Also, ask a particular staff member in the restaurant to call 911 and then stand next to you when they are on the line with the dispatcher. Since someone was shot, you want to ask for both police and emergency medical services.
If at all possible, you want to put your gun away before the police come through the door.
Do what the police tell you to do. It is there scene and they are responsible for what happens after they arrive.
Have a lawyer to call. Your lawyer will write out your official statement. His job is to be accurate and complete. He will explain why the use of lethal force was the safest course of action. At the scene, the most you can do is make sure the police don’t overlook obvious evidence. Once that is done, then be quiet and let your lawyer tell your story.

Despite its anti-gun politics, there are many millions of gun owners in California. California citizens in the Democrat-controlled costal counties might have a difficult time securing a carry permit. Citizens who live in inland counties have a much easier time.. and their permits are good in every county. Armed defense like this happens thousands of times every day.

To all the naysayers I’ve read online disparaging Jordan Salinas taking on the shooter with a 5.7;
Teddy Roosevelt told you off in 1910.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.

The people can not be all, and always, well informed.
The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive.
If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.

We have had 13 states independant 11 years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.

The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.
– Thomas Jefferson to William Smith (Son-in-law of John Adams)