By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Plaintiffs in the widely-reported case of Jensen v. ATF, after declaring victory when U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled the remaining registration requirements for registration of certain arms under the National Firearms Act (NFA) are unconstitutional, are now asking the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives for “clarity” on what is now legal and where.
The Second Amendment Foundation, which supported its sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) and its partners in the Jensen case, sent a letter Thursday to DOJ and ATF.
According to a SAF news release, the letter asks for a response to five separate questions:
1. Will the Government be providing guidance to regulated entities and individuals on how it plans to ensure compliance with the injunction?
2. If the Government will be providing guidance, what form will it take, and when will it be provided?
3. Does the Government intend to continue enforcing the enjoined provisions of the NFA against entities or individuals who are not covered by the injunction?
4. If so, what will the Government do to ensure that it does not seek to enforce the enjoined provisions of the NFA against entities and individuals across the country who are covered by the injunction?
5. If the injunction is later stayed, modified, dissolved, or otherwise made ineffective, how will the Government treat NFA items made or transferred while the injunction was in effect?
This coincides with a report at Orchid, a publication which covers firearm law compliance for federally-licensed firearms retailers which urges the firearms community “not to believe everything they read on the internet.”
“Simply stated,” writes Orchid’s Phil Milks, “most posts by individuals on social media saying the NFA is dead and today everything may be transferred without regard to NFA Forms are wrong. Per the opinion itself, the District Court decision is only applicable to the plaintiffs in the case and their customers/members: “In sum, the plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction—but only so far as it prohibits the defendants from enforcing the challenged NFA provisions against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers—both current and future.” (emphasis added) Further, while the Silencer Shop case plaintiffs were granted an injunction as to silencers, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs, the Jensen case plaintiffs were not granted relief with respect to AOWs.”
“Plaintiffs met with counsel over the course of the day and felt the best move for their members, supporters and the public at large is to ask direct questions to the government as it relates to the ruling,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb. “It’s much better to get answers straight from the source than to rely on second- and third-hand information online. We’re hopeful we receive a quick response from the government so the public will be better educated on what is – and is not – allowed under the injunction.”
In addition to CCRKBA, Jensen plaintiffs are the Firearms Policy Action Foundation, Texas State Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom LLC, and three private citizens. Gottlieb is chairman of the CCRKBA.
“We share in the liberty community’s excitement in the receipt of this permanent injunction, and that the government did not seek to have the initial stay extended,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “With the massive first step of having these elements of the NFA struck down now in hand, we need guidance from the government on all the details that will come with law-abiding Americans seeking to avail themselves of this injunction. To better help educate anyone covered under the ruling, Plaintiffs and their counsel determined the best path forward was to ask the ATF and DOJ directly about how the government plans to comply with the court’s judgment. We’re hoping for a speedy response so the public can better understand how this ruling affects them.”
There appears to be confusion as to who is affected by the Jensen ruling and how far does this ruling reach?
According to the Milks article, “Unfortunately, a District Court cannot issue an injunction under these circumstances that has nationwide effect.”
At least 15 states will still require buyers to fill out NFA paperwork because of state law requirements, as reported previously by TGM.
Orchid also notes that the Hendrix ruling affects plaintiffs in the other case, Silencer Shop v. ATF, which was consolidated with Jensen, by the federal district court in Texas. Those plaintiffs are the Silencer Shop Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, B&T USA, Palmetto State Armory, Silencerco Weapons Research, the Gun Owners Foundation and a private citizen, Brady Wetz.
