What Do Pro-2A Groups Think About Trump Admin Defending This Gun Law?

Pro-Second Amendment groups have mixed reactions to the Department of Justice (DOJ) asking a federal judge to grant summary judgement in a legal challenge to the National Firearms Act (NFA).

The reconciliation bill signed into law by President Donald Trump in July 2025 contained provisions that reduced the taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and guns described as “any other weapon” to $0 after the Senate parliamentarian struck language that removed those items from any coverage of the NFA. Some pro-Second Amendment groups have argued that the new figure makes the provisions unconstitutional.

“GOA is already challenging the NFA’s burdensome registration requirements for newly untaxed firearms in federal court in Texas. In both cases, the Department of Justice is defending a law that has no basis in the Constitution, its text, or our nation’s history,” Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Instead of wasting taxpayer dollars defending an unpopular and unconstitutional law, the Administration should have sided with the plaintiffs and acknowledged that the NFA violates the Second Amendment.”

While some Second Amendment advocates have expressed frustration over the Trump administration defending some gun laws, notably the NFA, from legal challenges, a top administration official told the DCNF that the criticism was misplaced.

“I understand people have policy differences with DOJ’s enforcement of federal laws, but, in my opinion, and I’ve said this to many gun groups, the appropriate place to launch those policy discussions is in Congress, not with us,” Assistant Attorney General for Civil Right Harmeet Dhillon said during a June interview. “We have, I mean, not me, but other people in this building regularly respond to all kinds of litigation on behalf of the United States where I don’t necessarily agree with what we’re defending.”

SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut took a nuanced position regarding the DOJ’s decisions when reached by the DCNF for comment.

“Ultimately it is Congress’ job to pass laws, the Executive Branch’s job to enforce them and the federal courts’ job to interpret their constitutionality,” Kraut said. “The Department of Justice is tasked with enforcing and defending the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress, including those that any particular administration may disagree with, and even if they conclude they might not ultimately prevail in its defense.”

“One only need to look to the Biden Administration for an example, where Biden’s DOJ defended the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act despite his personal disdain for the law,” Kraut continued. “While we disagree with how the administration has defended the NFA we are cognizant of the position it is in. The situation only reinforces why it’s so critical for organizations like SAF to continue to litigate these issues in court to hold the Government accountable.”

“Congress passed the NFA explicitly premised on its enumerated power to ‘lay and collect Taxes,’ and the Supreme Court upheld provisions of the NFA on that basis, holding that the NFA was “only a taxing measure” and that the registration provisions were “obviously supportable as in aid of a revenue purpose,” the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition argued in the complaint filed in August 2025 in Brown v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (Brown v., ATF). “Indeed, the Court has described the NFA as ‘an interrelated statutory system for the taxation of certain classes of firearms.’”

“That constitutional basis, however, has recently been eliminated with respect to the making, transferring, and receiving of several items which are defined as “firearms” by the NFA, including suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, thus making the NFA’s restrictions on those items unconstitutional as applied to those arms,” the groups argued.

The DOJ has resisted efforts to declare the NFA unconstitutional, arguing successfully in several cases that the NFA operates akin to a “shall issue” concealed-carry permit law.