Comments on: Bondi Dodges Challenge to DOJ’s Position That Suppressors Should Still Be Regulated Under the NFA

By: Sam I Am

Sam I Am — Tue, 17 Feb 2026 21:50:24 +0000

A tax amount of $0.00 remains a tax IAW legislation that did not also specifically overturn the requirement to register certain firearms. This is what trusting lawyers as political representatives get you.

The NFA tax generates little revenue for the central committee to spend. The registration requirement is priceless.

By: Doc Samson

Doc Samson — Fri, 13 Feb 2026 11:39:45 +0000

Proud to have Ben as my rep! My area’s Leftists HATE him, so I know he’s doing a good job!

By: Peter Tripoli

Peter Tripoli — Thu, 12 Feb 2026 21:04:07 +0000

If the Second Amendment is indeed a right, any tax is unconstitutional, just as a tax on newspaper ink has been held as unconstitutional.

By: 10x25mm

10x25mm — Thu, 12 Feb 2026 19:29:26 +0000

The SOT still exists, even if the transfer taxes on some items have been zeroed out.. SCOTUS ruled in Sonzinsky v. United States (300 U.S. Reports, 1937) that the SOT justifies the NFA.

DoJ is obeying SCOTUS, not the ignorati at NAGR.

By: Heresolong

Heresolong — Thu, 12 Feb 2026 19:14:50 +0000

“That’s pending litigation”? Is she confusing “I can’t talk about pending criminal cases” with “I can’t talk about pending litigation”? They aren’t the same. I think Bondi has done a lot of good things, but she’s also committed unforced errors on several occasions.

By: Hush

Hush — Thu, 12 Feb 2026 15:13:49 +0000

It appears presently the only positive movement out of Bondi’ DOJ is a bowel movement!

By: Dad

Dad — Thu, 12 Feb 2026 14:19:27 +0000

DOJ loves federal gun control. It’ll do everything to protect it, might give a few whacks at state-level controls by writing mean letters, but that’s about it.