Introduction: A Right That Was Never Meant To Be Conditional

For generations, the Second Amendment has stood as one of the clearest and most uncompromising declarations of individual liberty in the United States Constitution. It was written to ensure that the right of the people to keep and bear arms would never be dependent on government permission, taxation, or regulatory approval.

The Founders understood—through both experience and conviction—that a free nation must empower its citizens to defend themselves not only from criminals or foreign enemies, but also from the steady creep of governmental overreach. Because of this, the Second Amendment was crafted not as a suggestion, not as a negotiable guideline, but as a safeguard against the very kind of expansive federal authority we are witnessing today.

Recently, this issue came into sharp focus when the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, filed a brief defending the continued enforcement of the National Firearms Act (NFA)—even after Congress eliminated the tax that once justified the law’s existence. Her office described NFA-regulated firearms as “particularly dangerous and easily concealable,” a statement that echoes historical gun-control rhetoric rather than the constitutional principles this administration promised to uphold.

This raises a larger, unavoidable question:
If the government can still enforce a registration scheme for a tax that has been set to $0, what limits—if any—still restrain federal power?

What we do have

• A press release by Gun Owners of America (GOA) condemns the brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) under Bondi’s leadership. Gun Owners of America+2Yahoo+2
• A commentary article by News2A summarises the brief, noting that it is approximately 48 pages and outlines how the DOJ defends the NFA’s regulatory scheme. News2A+1
• A news-site article reports on a letter from members of Congress urging the DOJ (and Bondi) to abandon defense of the NFA’s registration and tax scheme, noting the DOJ’s brief responded. Guns.com

Key Arguments in the Brief (as summarised)

Based on the commentary and press coverage, the brief appears to contain the following principal arguments:

1. Congress had constitutional authority to enact the NFA
   • The DOJ argues that the NFA falls within Congress’s taxing power, the Commerce Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause. News2A
   • The brief responds to the plaintiffs’ narrative that the statute exceeds congressional power. News2A
   • It relies on precedent such as United States v. Miller and District of Columbia v. Heller to argue NFA-type regulation is constitutional. News2A+1
2. The NFA remains a valid regulatory scheme even if the excise tax on certain items is now $0
   • Plaintiffs argue that because Congress reduced the $200 tax on certain NFA items to $0, the tax/registration scheme no longer has vitality and thus the registration requirement should fall. The brief rejects this. Guns.com+1
   • The DOJ’s summary argument: even if direct tax on transfer is $0, the statute’s structure still serves revenue purpose (e.g., the occupational tax for manufacturers/distributors) and regulatory purposes under commerce clause. News2A
3. The NFA’s registration/transfer requirements target “particularly dangerous and easily concealable weapons” and thus fit the historical regulatory tradition
   • The brief argues that NFA-covered firearms (such as short-barreled rifles/shotguns, suppressors, “any other weapons” (AOWs)) present special risks and that regulation is consistent with historical tradition of weapons regulation. News2A
   • The brief maintains that the registration process and transfer‐tax/fee regime is a valid exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce and legitimate public safety interest. Gun Owners of America+1
4. Facial challenge under the Second Amendment is not meritorious
   • The DOJ contends that the case is not simply about the Second Amendment’s guarantee, but also about whether Congress exceeded its powers under the Constitution. News2A
   • It argues that the statute has long been upheld in the Fifth Circuit and other courts (e.g., for suppressors) under “presumptively lawful” weapons regulation standards. News2A
5. If relief is granted, it should be appropriately limitedThe Second Amendment, the NFA, and the DOJ’s Misguided Defense: Why Americans Must Pay Attention
   Introduction: A Right That Was Never Meant To Be Conditional
   For generations, the Second Amendment has stood as one of the clearest and most uncompromising declarations of individual liberty in the United States Constitution. It was written to ensure that the right of the people to keep and bear arms would never be dependent on government permission, taxation, or regulatory approval.
   The Founders understood—through both experience and conviction—that a free nation must empower its citizens to defend themselves not only from criminals or foreign enemies, but also from the steady creep of governmental overreach. Because of this, the Second Amendment was crafted not as a suggestion, not as a negotiable guideline, but as a safeguard against the very kind of expansive federal authority we are witnessing today.
   Recently, this issue came into sharp focus when the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, filed a brief defending the continued enforcement of the National Firearms Act (NFA)—even after Congress eliminated the tax that once justified the law’s existence. Her office described NFA-regulated firearms as “particularly dangerous and easily concealable,” a statement that echoes historical gun-control rhetoric rather than the constitutional principles this administration promised to uphold.
   This raises a larger, unavoidable question:
   If the government can still enforce a registration scheme for a tax that has been set to $0, what limits—if any—still restrain federal power?
   
   The National Firearms Act: A Law Built on a Tax That No Longer Exists
   When the NFA was enacted in 1934, it relied on a $200 transfer tax to regulate certain weapons. The legality of the act was tied directly to Congress’s taxing power. The Supreme Court upheld the NFA in Miller precisely because lawmakers framed it as a tax measure, not a regulatory or prohibitory law.
   Fast forward to today:
   Congress—through recent legislative changes—reduced the tax on certain NFA items to zero dollars.
   In other words:
   There is no longer a tax.
   There is no longer a revenue basis.
   The government’s original legal justification has evaporated.
   Yet the DOJ, under Pam Bondi, continues to argue that the NFA remains valid, enforceable, and necessary—despite the fact that its constitutional “hook” has been removed. Even worse, the DOJ suggests that a $0 tax still justifies a federal registration and approval process.
   This argument is not only weak; it is logically inconsistent. A tax that collects no tax cannot constitutionally support a federal registry that restricts a fundamental right.
   
   The DOJ’s “Dangerous and Concealable” Argument: A Recycled Excuse
   Bondi’s brief claims that NFA-regulated weapons—such as short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, and AOWs—are “particularly dangerous and easily concealable.”
   But this phrase has a long and troubling history.
   For decades, anti-Second Amendment politicians have used identical language to justify:
   handgun bans,
   magazine limits,
   semi-auto prohibitions,
   and even ammunition restrictions.
   The American public was told each time that these regulations were “modest,” “reasonable,” and “necessary for public safety.” Yet every restriction, once accepted, paved the way for another.
   By using that same language today, the DOJ places itself in direct conflict with the original intent of the Second Amendment—an intent that explicitly recognizes the right of the people to own arms precisely because they are effective, not because they satisfy government comfort levels.
   The purpose of the Second Amendment was not to protect arms that government officials find harmless.
   It was written to protect the arms that make a free people capable of remaining free.
   
   GOA’s Lawsuit: Exposing the Contradictions
   The lawsuit brought by Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation challenges the DOJ’s logic at its core. Their argument is straightforward:
   If Congress removes the tax,
   And the NFA is only constitutional because of the tax,
   Then the regulatory framework cannot continue.
   This is not a political argument; it is a constitutional one.
   And it is absolutely correct.
   The DOJ’s defense—that a zero-dollar tax still maintains federal regulatory authority—is an admission that the government wants the power without the constitutional justification that originally granted it.
   This should alarm every American who values the rule of law.
   
   A Dangerous Precedent for Constitutional Rights
   If the federal government can do this with the Second Amendment, it can do the same with:
   free speech,
   religious liberty,
   freedom of the press,
   or due process.
   It can claim a power, then keep exercising that power even after the legal foundation is gone.
   This is not how constitutional governance works.
   This is how unchecked bureaucratic authority works.
   The Second Amendment was designed specifically to prevent this kind of slow, creeping encroachment on the rights of the people.
   
   The Real Issue: Federal Power vs. Individual Liberty
   This moment is not just about suppressors or short-barreled rifles.
   It is not even about the NFA alone.
   This is about whether the federal government is allowed to:
   reinterpret its own powers,
   ignore structural limits,
   and preserve outdated regulatory systems
   even after the legal basis for those systems has been removed.
   When the DOJ defends a registration system detached from its legal justification, it reveals a mindset that sees constitutional rights as privileges to be managed—not freedoms to be protected.
   That mindset is incompatible with the system of liberty the Framers established.
   
   A Call for Real Constitutional Leadership
   Americans deserve an Attorney General and President Trump who will take a firm stand for the Constitution, not defend obsolete regulations out of bureaucratic convenience.
   The NFA is a relic of a bygone era.
   Its tax structure is gone.
   Its justification is gone.
   Its constitutional footing is gone.
   It is time for the federal government to acknowledge that reality.
   Repealing or dismantling the NFA is not radical.
   Ignoring the Constitution is.
   
   Conclusion: The Second Amendment Needs Defenders, Not Managers
   The right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege measured by government paperwork, registration backlogs, or arbitrary classifications.
   It is a foundational right handed down from the Founders themselves—rooted in the belief that the people are the final check on the accumulation of government power.
   The DOJ’s defense of the NFA, especially after its tax foundation has been removed, is a direct contradiction to that belief.
   Every American who values liberty should pay attention.
   Because if a zero-dollar tax can still control your rights today,
   what stops the government from redefining any other liberty tomorrow?
   It is time to restore the Second Amendment to its rightful place:
   untouched, unrestricted, and uncompromised.
   • The brief asks the court to avoid a nationwide injunction and limit relief to those plaintiffs and their injuries. News2A

A Final Plea: Make Your Voice Heard

The fight for the Second Amendment does not belong only to lawyers, courts, or advocacy groups. It belongs to every American who understands that constitutional rights must be guarded with vigilance and defended with courage. If we stay silent while outdated laws are upheld through inconsistent reasoning, then we allow the very freedoms our Founders secured to slowly erode.

That is why your voice is not optional—it is essential.

I strongly urge every reader who values the Second Amendment to contact both President Donald J. Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi and make your position unmistakably clear. Tell them that the American people expect leadership that honors the Constitution, not bureaucratic convenience.

Ask them—respectfully but firmly—to take immediate action:

1. Withdraw or revise the DOJ’s brief

Demand that the Department of Justice rewrite its position in the NFA case to reflect a constitutional, Second Amendment–centered understanding of the right to keep and bear arms. The DOJ should not be defending outdated regulatory overreach under the guise of public safety.

2. Publicly acknowledge the truth about the NFA

A $0 tax cannot constitutionally support a federal registry, approval process, or restriction on law-abiding citizens. The DOJ must acknowledge that when Congress removed the tax, it removed the law’s original legal justification.

3. Support dismantling or repealing the NFA

Ask President Trump and Attorney General Bondi to support legislative or administrative steps that bring the law into alignment with modern constitutional standards. The NFA’s time has passed. The Constitution has not.

Your Letter Matters

Whether you write a full letter, send an email, or even place a phone call, your voice adds to a growing chorus demanding that the federal government honor the Second Amendment as it was written—not as it has been reinterpreted over time.

Change begins when citizens speak up.
And now is the time to speak.

Let me know what you think below

_{Copyright Notice © 2025 Cecil Wayne Thorn Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this work authored by Cecil Wayne Thorn, to distribute, display, and reproduce the work, in its entirety, including verbatim copies, provided that no fee is charged for the copies or distribution. This permission is granted for non-commercial distribution only.}