WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a controversial legal filing that has sparked outrage among gun rights advocates, the U.S. Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi has formally defended the National Firearms Act (NFA) in court, citing the Constitution’s Necessary and Proper Clause and the Commerce Clause as legal justification for firearm registration and regulation.
The DOJ’s argument came in response to a lawsuit brought by Gun Owners of America (GOA), which challenges the constitutionality of the NFA. Instead of seeking to narrow the law or repeal it, the DOJ’s legal brief reinforces and expands the federal government’s authority to register firearms—despite the NFA’s current $0 tax on certain regulated weapons like suppressors and short-barreled rifles.
According to GOA’s summary of the case, the DOJ contends that the federal government retains the power to impose and enforce gun control laws under broad constitutional powers, including the authority to register firearms even without a monetary tax. The DOJ argues that Congress has the right to enact “necessary and proper” legislation to carry out federal responsibilities, which includes the NFA’s registration scheme.
Perhaps more concerning to gun owners, the DOJ’s filing asserts that the government can restrict or ban firearms deemed “particularly dangerous” or “uniquely susceptible” to criminal misuse. This vague language could easily be applied to common firearms, including handguns, which are the most frequently used firearms in violent crimes.
GOA believes the DOJ’s stance opens the door to widespread federal regulation and possible bans on constitutionally protected arms. The organization warns that if the government can justify such measures under the “Necessary and Proper” clause, there may be no constitutional limit to future restrictions.
GOA is continuing its legal battle in federal court, opposing the DOJ’s motion to dismiss the case outright. The group contends that the constitutional issues raised by the NFA and its enforcement mechanisms are far from settled and deserve full judicial review.
The pro-2A community is watching this case closely, as its outcome could set a precedent for how expansively the federal government may regulate firearms in the future under existing constitutional interpretations.
While the DOJ’s actions are occurring under the Trump Administration, many Second Amendment supporters are urging the President to intervene and reverse course, calling the Department’s legal strategy a betrayal of campaign promises and constitutional principles.
For gun owners and advocates of the Second Amendment, this case serves as a sobering reminder that vigilance is necessary, even under administrations that claim to be pro-gun. The courts will now decide whether the federal government’s claimed powers are, in fact, “necessary and proper”—or an overreach that infringes on the rights of law-abiding Americans.
