hmmmm...looks like gun control advocates are getting their wishes. Can't say I agree with this. I wouldn't like it if one of Obama's AGs had done this

pretty tough to create a christo-fascist nirvana when you leave guns in the hands of those that won't goosestep upon demand. with all the data so readily available on most americans, knowing which of them that disagree with you, and own guns, would be very helpful.

When an authoritarian takes over the first thing they do is confiscate everyone's guns. MAGA better watch out.

Of course, they aren't taking mine

I can't tell you how many guns I've owned, but I can tell you that only one was registered. I bought it to get my concealed carry permit long ago. my new patriotic american mantra is ... no witness, no camera, no maga.

Charlton Heston's words also - "take this gun from my cold dead hands" - concur - totally.

Note that this is a court order and not a case brought by the DOJ.  The original litigation, Reese v. ATF, concerned a law that prohibited licensed firearm dealers (FFLs) selling firearms to adults between the ages of 18 and 20.  The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) sought to overturn the law as unconstitutional.

The SAF and FPC won their challenge of the law prohibiting sale of firearms to 18 to 20 year old adults.  But the District Court issued a narrow ruling only applied to members of SAF and FPC.  The District Court ruled the government would be blocked from enforcing the law against the members of SAF and FPC.  But that requires DOJ/ATF having access to the member lists to comply with the court ruling.  

The DOJ has actually joined the SAF and FPC in a motion to remove the requirement to provide the membership lists.  As a general policy DOJ does not compel disclosure of membership from political advocacy groups and did not seek the membership lists in this specific case.  At present, the real issue deals with the First Amendment rather than the Second Amendment.  And the situation was created by a narrow District Court ruling rather than by the DOJ.

The DOJ has actually joined the SAF and FPC in a motion to remove the requirement to provide the membership lists. 

where is your proof of this?

where is your proof of this?

SAF, OTHER LEADING SECOND AMENDMENT GROUPS FILE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT     

SAF FILES MOTION TO AMEND JUDGMENT IN REESE V. ATF   

Analysis: Friction Between Trump DOJ, Gun-Rights Groups Intensifies [Member Exclusive"]

where is your proof of this?

That last is blocked by a paywall.  Here is the content, I have bolded the pertinent sentences:

Analysis: Friction Between Trump DOJ, Gun-Rights Groups Intensifies [Member Exclusive]

• Jake Fogleman  October 12, 2025

The Department of Justice (DOJ) continues to find itself at loggerheads with the gun-rights movement in court, and growing frustration has activists starting to boil over.

The DOJ just succeeded in limiting the scope of an injunction multiple gun-rights groups had secured against a federal law.   Despite  a unanimous ruling  from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals that struck down the law that prevents licensed dealers from selling or transferring handguns to adults under 21 back in January, the district court judge presiding over the case issued a final judgment on Tuesday that significantly narrowed the injunctive relief provided by the Fifth Circuit’s holding.

“The Court enters declaratory judgment, as described in paragraph 3 below, with respect to (a) Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, Emily Naquin, and (b) individuals and federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, dealers or collectors who were members of Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, or Louisiana Shooting Association at the time this action was filed on November 6, 2020,” Judge Robert Summerhays   wrote   in   Reese v. ATF .

In other words, despite the appeals court holding that the law is unconstitutional on its face, only the plaintiffs and their members will be spared from having to abide by it. That is   exactly what the DOJ asked for last month , over the gun-rights groups’ protestations. Furthermore, the judge ordered the groups to turn over “verified list[s] of their members” to the court within the next three weeks for the injunction to be valid.

The outcome drew swift condemnation from the plaintiffs.

“The practical effect of this order is almost laughable if it wasn’t so frustrating and didn’t impact the Second Amendment rights of thousands of individuals,” Adam Kraut, Executive Director of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), said in a statement. “What the court has done here is say that this law is unconstitutional, but in order for an 18-year-old to avoid having their constitutional rights trounced by it   today   they must live in one of only three states in the nation and have been a member of SAF at age 13. And even then, they’re only covered if SAF discloses their membership to the government under duress.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition was even more pointed in its criticism. In a statement, it   accused   the court of “regurgitat[ing] the Trump Administration’s self-serving demand to wipe away the Fifth Circuit’s ruling against the government’s unconstitutional ban and continue denying millions of peaceable adults their right to keep and bear arms.”

The terms of the order and the DOJ’s role in bringing it about even caught the attention of gun-rights groups who were not parties to the case. Gun Owners of America   called out   Attorney General Pam Bondi (R.) specifically and accused her of “creating a registry of gun owners.” Hannah Hill, Vice President of the National Foundation for Gun Rights,   charged   that the DOJ was forcing the plaintiffs to choose between their “First and Second Amendment freedoms.”

This groundswell of condemnation from many of the prominent institutional members of the gun-rights movement may have even caught the attention of the DOJ. Just three days after the court issued its final judgment, the Justice Department joined with the plaintiffs to file a joint motion to amend the order by stripping the requirement that the groups turn over their membership lists.

“The Government, as a general policy, does not compel disclosure of the identity of members of private organizations, and the Government did not seek to do so here,” the  motion reads .

That may have helped earn the department back   some goodwill among gun-rights advocates , but it still leaves their general opposition to broader relief from the federal law intact. And it wasn’t the only time they made that position clear this week.

At the Supreme Court, the DOJ submitted an opposition brief on Wednesday to the cert petition filed by gun-rights advocates challenging the  Fourth Circuit’s upholding  of the same federal law at issue in  Reese . In it, the department once again dodged the chance to opine on the merits of the federal law as applied to young adults, but it also encouraged the court not to take up the issue.

“Petitioners renew their contention that Section 922(b)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to 18-to-20-year-olds,” Solicitor General John Sauer   wrote in  McCoy v. ATF . “But because petitioners have either already turned 21 years old or will do so soon, this case is likely to become moot before the Court has an opportunity to decide it.”

Instead, Sauer requested that the Court hold the  McCoy  petition pending the outcome of   the Hawaii gun-carry case   it recently decided to take up and the resolution of three other petitions awaiting the Court’s decision. This filing incensed some gun-rights activists.

“The anti-gun attorneys working for [Attorney General Pam Bondi] are out of control,” Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America,   said in response to the brief . “This is disgustingly anti-Second Amendment.”

Finally, the DOJ added to the streak on Thursday by filing yet another Supreme Court brief in opposition to a gun-rights lawsuit. In  Rush  v. United States , which challenges the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) registration requirement for short-barreled rifles, the DOJ asked the Court to deny the appeal.

“Petitioner renews his contention that the NFA’s registration requirement—which prohibits possessing short-barreled rifles without registering them —violates the Second Amendment on its face,” Solicitor General Sauer   wrote . “The court of appeals correctly rejected that argument, and its decision does not conflict with any decision of this Court or of any other court of appeals. No further review is warranted.”

This brief prompted one of the most pointed critiques to date from a gun-rights group. The Firearms Policy Coalition issued   a press release   directly calling out the Trump Administration for, in its view, failing to take federal gun control as seriously as state restrictions despite its purported commitment to defend the Second Amendment.

“Once again, the Trump Administration has chosen to defend federal gun control instead of the Constitution,” the group said. “Earlier this year, President Trump directed the Attorney General to ‘protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.’ Filing briefs that defend the government’s power to tax, register, and criminalize the mere possession of constitutionally protected arms does the exact opposite.”

This week’s developments suggest a growing sense of frustration among many members of the gun-rights movement with what has been  a defining theme  of the administration’s approach to gun policy thus far, namely its willingness to work with those groups on their issues in progressive states while maintaining a business-as-usual approach to gun-control enforcement at the federal level. In any other administration, that trend might draw consistent praise for its change-of-pace approach to the gun issue.

But because this is an administration that courted gun voters by explicitly pledging federal gun-control rollback, the chorus will likely continue to grow louder until the administration fulfills more of its promises at the federal level.

If MAGA doesn't get that they've been played at every turn, no one can change their blind devotion to Trump and his minions.

They will do literally EVERYTHING they accused Obama or Biden of doing. FEMA/ICE camps already in place for anyone they decide against.

Private school vouchers for the rich and religious indoctrination being mandated in public schools, just openly destroying the entire education system by design, from higher education universities on down.

They want gun owners information so they can be ready for any MAGA resistance.

Trump already saw what his voters will do on J6.

So buckle up MAGA because Obama was never coming for your guns but Trump can't risk having a universal backlash where his voters come to realize what's really happening knowing red states have the most lax gun laws on the books.

His administration will use illegals, crime and people of color as the excuse but make no mistake about it, they are the ones who will take away that freedom with gun owners.

All you have to do is read their own words on the open attacks regarding freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly.