Texas Gun Rights

What the NFA Injunction Really Means for Suppressor Buyers — and What It Doesn’t

TXGR Staff — Thu, 13 Aug 2026 14:19:17 +0000

Brandon Herrera and Texas State Rep. Wes Virdell walked out of Silencer Shop with suppressors without filing a Form 4 or registering them under the National Firearms Act. It was a historic moment—but it did not repeal the NFA for everyone. Here is what happened, who is actually protected, what gun owners and FFLs need to know before attempting a similar transaction, and what comes next.

Just after midnight on August 13, Brandon Herrera and Texas State Rep. Wes Virdell walked into Silencer Shop in Leander, Texas and did something Americans have not been able to do through an ordinary commercial transaction in generations.

They acquired suppressors without submitting an ATF Form 4, without waiting for ATF approval, and without registering the suppressors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

Gun Owners of America called them the first lawful commercial suppressor transfers without NFA registration since the National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934.

But there is an important catch:

It does not automatically protect every FFL.

And it does not mean you can walk into any gun shop, buy any suppressor, and simply announce that the NFA no longer applies.

The details matter.

A lot.

How Congress Pulled the Tax Foundation Out From Under the NFA

For decades, the National Firearms Act imposed a making or transfer tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, machine guns, destructive devices and other firearms falling within the statute.

Along with those taxes came the federal registration machinery: applications, fingerprints, government approval, registration and criminal penalties for noncompliance.

Then Congress eliminated the making and transfer taxes on four NFA categories effective January 1, 2026:

Suppressors.

Short-barreled rifles.

Short-barreled shotguns.

And Any Other Weapons.

Machine guns and destructive devices remained taxed.

Congress also left the NFA’s separate special occupational tax on importers, manufacturers and dealers in place.

Yet ATF continued enforcing the registration, application and approval machinery attached to the taxes Congress had reduced to zero.

That is what the plaintiffs challenged in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, which was consolidated with Jensen v. ATF.

On August 5, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix agreed with them.

The court held that Congress had enacted the challenged NFA provisions under its taxing power—and that once Congress eliminated the taxes those provisions were designed to support, those requirements could no longer be justified under that constitutional power.

The court therefore entered a permanent injunction preventing DOJ and ATF from enforcing specified NFA provisions against the protected plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members and customers—both current and future.

The court did not need to decide the plaintiffs’ separate Second Amendment claims.

Why Herrera and Virdell Could Walk Out Without a Form 4

Herrera and Virdell had an unusually clear set of facts.

Both were members of Gun Owners of America, one of the associational plaintiffs.

They were also completing their transactions through Silencer Shop.

Before the transfers occurred, GOA and Silencer Shop notified DOJ and ATF in writing that they intended to complete the transactions without filing a Form 4, without requesting ATF transfer approval and without registering the suppressors in the NFRTR.

The notice specifically identified Herrera and Virdell as GOA members and Silencer Shop customers.

Judge Hendrix had temporarily stayed his final judgment for seven days to allow the federal government to seek appellate relief.

That seven-day stay expired, and the transactions proceeded shortly after midnight on August 13 under the injunction then in effect.

That distinction matters.

Herrera and Virdell were not given special permission by ATF to ignore federal law.

They were relying on a federal court order preventing ATF from enforcing specified NFA provisions against people and transactions covered by the injunction.

Does Living in Texas Mean You Can Do the Same Thing?

No.

This may be the most important takeaway from the entire case.

Texas was one of 15 plaintiff states, along with Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.

But the court did not turn every resident of those states into a plaintiff.

The state-based portion of the injunction protects the plaintiff states themselves and, where applicable, their agencies and political subdivisions.

So an ordinary Texan cannot simply say:

“Texas was a plaintiff, therefore I am personally exempt from the NFA.”

That is not what Judge Hendrix ordered.

At the same time, the injunction’s separate protections for members and qualifying customers are not written as benefits available only to residents of those 15 states.

That means there are really two different questions:

First: Are you personally or transactionally within the federal injunction?

Second: Does the law of your state independently allow the possession and transfer you are trying to complete?

Those are not the same question.

Membership May Provide One Path to Protection

The court’s order protects current and future members of the associational plaintiffs where applicable.

That is significant.

It means someone relying on the membership side of the injunction should be an actual member of a protected organization—not merely a subscriber, donor, email recipient or general supporter.

Judge Hendrix specifically declined to extend protection to vaguely defined “supporters.”

So if you intend to rely on associational membership, Texas Gun Rights strongly recommends becoming a documented member of an applicable plaintiff organization before attempting the transaction and keeping proof of that membership.

But membership alone does not answer every question.

The buyer may be protected while the FFL’s position is less clear.

The firearm itself may present another legal issue.

State law may impose an independent restriction.

And the identity of the actual purchaser matters.

For example, a person should not assume that his individual membership automatically extends to a trust, LLC or other separate entity purchasing the firearm. The injunction is party-specific, and those entity questions should be reviewed by competent firearms counsel before relying on the order.

Customers of Protected Businesses Have Another Path

Judge Hendrix also extended the injunction to current and future customers of commercial plaintiffs and customers of commercial members of the associational plaintiffs.

Why?

Because if ATF could continue imposing the challenged NFA requirements on their customers, those requirements would continue deterring people from doing business with the protected companies.

But the court drew a critical line:

Customer protection is transaction-specific.

The injunction covers qualifying customer transactions with the protected plaintiffs or their commercial members.

It does not give someone a permanent personal exemption covering every NFA firearm he owns, buys, makes or transfers for the rest of his life.

The named commercial plaintiffs in the Silencer Shop case include B&T USA, Palmetto State Armory and SilencerCo Weapons Research.

The consolidated Jensen case includes FFL Hot Shots Custom.

Silencer Shop has also published its own implementation guidance stating that qualifying suppressors and AOWs in its program must originate from Silencer Shop or another named plaintiff.

That is why the seller—and even the source of the particular product—can matter.

Buying a qualifying suppressor through a protected commercial chain is very different from walking into an unrelated FFL with an unrelated suppressor and assuming the same protection automatically follows you.

Before You Try to Buy a Suppressor Without a Form 4

This ruling is a major victory.

But this is also an active federal case involving criminal firearms statutes.

Do not treat a headline or social-media post as your legal protection.

Before attempting a no-Form-4 suppressor purchase, a buyer should be able to answer several questions:

What exactly is my basis for protection under the injunction? Are you a current member of a protected associational plaintiff, a qualifying customer in a protected commercial transaction, or otherwise specifically covered?
Is the FFL also comfortable that the injunction protects its role in the transaction? Your protection does not necessarily answer the dealer’s legal exposure.
Where did the suppressor originate? If you are relying on a commercial-plaintiff/customer theory, the seller and distribution chain may matter.
Does your state impose any separate requirement? A federal injunction against ATF does not erase an independent state restriction.
Who is legally acquiring the suppressor? If the purchaser is a trust, corporation or LLC rather than the individual member, do not assume the protection automatically carries over.
Do you have documentation? Keep proof of membership if membership is your basis, the purchase records, the suppressor’s identifying information and a copy of the court’s final judgment.
Have you spoken with competent firearms counsel? If you are going to rely on a party-specific federal injunction involving potential felony exposure, getting legal advice before the transaction is the prudent move.

Texas Gun Rights is not telling every Texan to walk into any gun shop and demand a suppressor without a Form 4.

We are telling gun owners to understand exactly why they believe their transaction is protected before relying on the injunction.

FFLs Should Be Even More Careful

The ruling puts many Federal Firearms Licensees in an unusual position.

The court has prohibited ATF from enforcing specified NFA provisions against protected parties.

But it did not publish a comprehensive operations manual explaining how every dealer, manufacturer, distributor and customer should restructure their records and procedures overnight.

And the order does not wipe away the Gun Control Act.

That matters because a suppressor is still legally classified as a “firearm” under the Gun Control Act.

So ordinary federal dealer requirements still matter.

For qualifying commercial suppressor transfers, Form 4473 and applicable NICS requirements remain in place, along with the FFL’s ordinary federal recordkeeping obligations.

The separate NFA special occupational tax for importers, manufacturers and dealers also remains on the books and was not part of the constitutional relief granted by Judge Hendrix.

That means an FFL considering no-Form-4 transfers should independently determine:

why the dealer itself is protected;
why the purchaser is protected;
why the particular product and transaction are protected;
which federal Gun Control Act requirements remain;
which state requirements remain;
and what documentation should be maintained to establish the dealer’s basis for relying on the injunction.

A customer’s GOA membership card should not automatically be treated as a magic piece of paper that resolves every question for an otherwise unrelated dealer.

Silencer Shop’s own current guidance makes a similar distinction. Its program says qualifying Silencer Shop suppressor and AOW transactions can proceed without a Form 4 in states where state law allows it, while parties attempting to rely on organizational membership are advised to determine how the membership protection applies to both buyer and dealer.

Some FFLs may therefore decline to participate until their attorneys, compliance professionals or business partners are satisfied with the procedure.

That does not necessarily mean they oppose the ruling.

It means the legal landscape changed dramatically in a matter of days, and an FFL operating under federal licensing and inspection requirements may want a documented legal basis before becoming a test case.

Texas Gun Rights’ Recommendation

If you intend to attempt a purchase under the Hendrix injunction, Texas Gun Rights recommends taking the cautious route:

Become an actual member of an applicable plaintiff organization like GOA if you intend to rely on the membership protection.

Make sure the dealer understands why it believes it is protected too.

Make sure the particular suppressor and transaction fall within the legal theory being relied upon.

Keep documentation supporting that position.

And most importantly:

Talk to a competent firearms attorney before completing the transaction.

If you want ongoing access to Texas firearms attorneys, Texas Gun Rights supporters can sign up with Armed Attorneys using code TXGR to receive 75% off the first month of membership.

A federal injunction is powerful protection.

But when the potential alternative is becoming the person ATF chooses to argue is outside that injunction, this is not the time to make assumptions.

What About Short-Barreled Rifles and Short-Barreled Shotguns?

This is another area where gun owners need to be careful.

SBRs and SBSs were part of the underlying constitutional victory because Congress also reduced their NFA making and transfer taxes to zero.

But dealer transfers face a separate federal obstacle outside the provisions Judge Hendrix enjoined.

The Gun Control Act—18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4)—prohibits an FFL from selling or delivering a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun to an individual unless specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity.

That requirement was not erased by the Hendrix injunction.

Silencer Shop’s current August 13 guidance therefore says SBR and SBS transfers still require a Form 4 in the states where they are lawful because the Form 4 is currently the mechanism being used to obtain that separate GCA authorization.

So do not look at what Herrera and Virdell did with suppressors and assume you can automatically do the same thing with an SBR.

The legal issue is different.

What About AOWs?

Any Other Weapons were also among the categories for which Congress eliminated the NFA making and transfer tax.

The Silencer Shop plaintiffs challenged the continuing registration system for those firearms as well.

Silencer Shop currently says qualifying AOWs in its program are being treated the same way as qualifying suppressors in states where state law allows those transactions without continued NFA registration.

There is an important wrinkle, however.

The final judgment states that the injunction does not extend to AOW regulation as it relates to the Jensen plaintiffs.

Again, the precise plaintiff or customer theory matters.

Machine Guns and Destructive Devices Are NOT Covered

Machine guns and destructive devices are outside the core constitutional holding because Congress did not eliminate their NFA making and transfer taxes.

The court’s ruling therefore does not eliminate their NFA requirements.

Machine guns are also subject to additional federal restrictions outside the portions of the NFA at issue here.

Why Are Suppressors Still Treated Like Firearms?

Even after the NFA victory, suppressors remain trapped under another federal gun-control law.

The Gun Control Act separately defines a firearm to include a firearm muffler or firearm silencer.

That is why a qualifying suppressor transaction can escape the enjoined NFA Form 4 and registration requirements while still requiring the buyer to complete a Form 4473 and satisfy the ordinary federal dealer-transfer requirements.

Texas Gun Rights believes Congress should eliminate that requirement too.

A suppressor does not fire a projectile.

It is a device designed to reduce the sound produced by a firearm.

There is no legitimate reason a law-abiding American should need federal firearms paperwork simply because Washington decided to legally classify that device as a firearm.

The Hendrix ruling attacks the NFA layer.

Congress still needs to eliminate the GCA layer.

H.R. 850, the Silencers Help Us Save Hearing Act, or SHUSH Act, is one proposal that would remove silencers from the Gun Control Act’s federal firearm definition and treat them as firearm accessories.

What Happens Next?

The Hendrix decision is a massive victory, but the legal story is not finished.

First, the court’s seven-day stay is over.

Judge Hendrix entered his judgment on August 5 and stayed its effect for seven days specifically so the federal government could seek appellate relief.

That period expired without DOJ obtaining a new stay.

That is why the injunction is operative now.

But the expiration of that seven-day stay is not technically the same thing as the expiration of DOJ’s ordinary deadline to file a notice of appeal.

Because the United States and federal agencies are parties, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 generally provides a 60-day civil appeal window. As of August 13, that ordinary period has not expired.

So gun owners should distinguish between two facts:

The injunction is currently in effect.

And:

The normal appellate filing period is not yet over.

There is also a larger strategic question.

Because Judge Hendrix declined to issue a universal injunction, DOJ and ATF are now facing the prospect of enforcing the same NFA provisions against one American while being prohibited from enforcing them against another American engaging in essentially identical conduct.

Nearly 50 members of Congress have already urged DOJ to decline an appeal, adopt the court’s constitutional position nationwide and begin rulemaking to remove the challenged regulations.

Other challenges can also continue working their way through federal courts.

Judge Hendrix specifically noted similar litigation including Brown v. ATF in Missouri and Roberts v. ATF in Kentucky.

That matters because his district-court ruling, important as it is, does not create binding Fifth Circuit precedent for every gun owner in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

If DOJ ultimately declines to appeal, the injunction survives—but there is no Fifth Circuit decision transforming Judge Hendrix’s reasoning into controlling appellate precedent across the circuit.

The Only Permanent Solution Is Repeal

This case shows both how much progress gun owners have made—and why Texas Gun Rights refuses to settle for half-measures.

A court injunction can be limited to particular plaintiffs.

An executive-branch enforcement policy can change with the next administration.

An ATF regulation can be rewritten.

The statutes themselves remain until Congress removes them.

That is why Texas Gun Rights continues demanding that Congress abolish the ATF and repeal the National Firearms Act.

H.R. 221, the Abolish the ATF Act, would eliminate the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

H.R. 335, the Repeal the NFA Act, would repeal Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code—the National Firearms Act itself.

And Congress must also finish eliminating the separate Gun Control Act provisions that continue treating suppressors and other constitutionally protected arms as federally restricted items.

Texas Gun Rights does not want a faster federal gun registry.

We do not want a cheaper permission slip.

And we do not believe a hearing-protection device should require federal firearms paperwork simply because Washington decided to call it a “firearm.”

We want the unconstitutional system gone.

SIGN THE PETITION: ABOLISH THE ATF & REPEAL THE NFA

Tell Congress it is time to dismantle the federal gun-control bureaucracy and repeal the National Firearms Act once and for all. And if you want to help Texas Gun Rights mobilize gun owners, pressure Congress and keep fighting until these federal gun-control laws are gone:

Court victories are worth celebrating. But gun owners should not have to depend on whether their name, membership card or gun dealer falls within the wording of a federal injunction to exercise a constitutional right.

The NFA must go.

And so must the ATF.

This article provides general information about an active federal case and is not individualized legal advice. Anyone intending to rely on the injunction should consult competent firearms counsel regarding the specific facts of the proposed transaction.

Paxton and Talarico Are Nearly Tied — But Their Gun Records Could Not Be Further Apart

TXGR Staff — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 15:30:41 +0000

A new statewide poll places the Texas U.S. Senate race within the margin of error. On the Second Amendment, Ken Paxton and James Talarico offer Texans two radically different choices.

A new poll shows the Texas U.S. Senate race is too close for gun owners to ignore.

The Texas Southern University survey found Democrat James Talarico leading Republican Ken Paxton 47% to 45%, with Libertarian Ted Brown at 2% and 6% of likely voters undecided.

That two-point difference falls within the poll’s 2.83-point margin of error, leaving the race effectively tied. The survey questioned 1,200 likely Texas voters between July 27 and July 30.

But while Paxton and Talarico may be separated by only two points in the poll, their records on the Second Amendment could not be further apart.

Paxton Put His Commitments in Writing

Paxton completed and returned the Texas Gun Rights Candidate Survey 100% pro-gun.

That means Paxton did not rely on vague campaign language or carefully worded promises. He placed his Second Amendment commitments in writing and signed his name to them.

Texas Gun Rights has the completed survey on file and will use those written answers to hold him accountable if elected.

Paxton has also been endorsed by Texas Gun Rights PAC, the National Association for Gun Rights PAC and Gun Owners of America.

NAGR PAC cited Paxton’s 100% pro-gun survey and his lawsuit challenging ATF’s rule targeting private firearm sales. GOA cited his involvement in legal challenges to the pistol-brace rule, suppressor restrictions, and ATF regulations affecting private sales and gun-show transactions.

The survey establishes what Paxton has promised to do.

His record and endorsements provide additional evidence for gun owners evaluating whether he can be trusted to follow through.

Talarico Built His Record With the Gun Confiscation Lobby

Talarico has spent his statewide campaign attempting to present himself as a reasonable moderate.

His record in the Texas House tells a different story.

Texas Gun Rights previously exposed that Talarico hired Ana Lopez, a former leader of the University of Texas “Cocks Not Glocks” protest movement, to work in his legislative office.

She was not brought in to answer phones or handle scheduling.

According to TXGR’s reporting, Lopez helped work on gun-control legislation while serving on Talarico’s staff.

Talarico’s own public statements also reveal how he views the Second Amendment.

He has compared gun restrictions to permits for political demonstrations and invoked the phrase “well regulated” to argue for greater government authority over the right to keep and bear arms.

That treats a constitutional right as a government-managed privilege — one that politicians may burden with licenses, fees, databases, delays, and criminal penalties.

“Ken Paxton did not hide behind focus-group language. He signed his name to a 100% pro-gun survey and put his commitments to Texas gun owners in writing,” said Chris McNutt, president of Texas Gun Rights.

“James Talarico built his gun-policy operation with help from the gun confiscation lobby and spent years treating the Second Amendment like a permission slip from government. Texans are not choosing between two similar candidates — they are choosing between written no-compromise commitments and a record of betrayal.”

The Poll Exposes the Stakes

The poll found Talarico receiving support from 97% of Democrats, while Paxton was supported by only 85% of Republicans.

Talarico also held a large lead among independents, while Paxton faced a 57% unfavorable rating among likely voters.

Those numbers may change before Election Day.

But gun owners cannot assume Texas will remain pro-gun without their involvement.

Talarico’s campaign is attempting to soften and repackage a record built alongside the gun confiscation lobby. Paxton has given gun owners a written standard by which he can be judged.

Texas Gun Rights will continue exposing the records, staffing decisions, public statements, and survey answers of candidates seeking power over your Second Amendment rights.

Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights expose gun-ban politicians and hold every candidate accountable for their promises to gun owners.

Todd Blanche Clears Senate Committee—Now Comes the Second Amendment Test

TXGR Staff — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 15:30:22 +0000

The acting attorney general has promised relief from Biden-era gun rules, but Texas gun owners should demand permanent action — not a more efficient ATF.

Todd Blanche is one step closer to becoming the next United States attorney general.

On August 4, the Senate Judiciary Committee advanced Blanche’s nomination on a 12–10 vote, sending it to the full Senate for consideration. Blanche has served as acting attorney general while also holding the position of deputy attorney general.

But gun owners should not mistake a nomination vote for a Second Amendment victory.

The real question is what Blanche will do with permanent control of the Department of Justice — and whether his administration will dismantle federal gun-control machinery or simply manage it more carefully.

ATF Rollbacks Are Only a Beginning

Blanche has already joined ATF Director Robert Cekada in announcing 34 proposed and final regulatory actions aimed at reducing burdens on lawful gun owners and firearm businesses.

DOJ says the package will update rules that no longer reflect current law, court precedent, or agency practice. It also says the changes are designed not to interfere with ATF’s continuing enforcement mission.

Repealing Biden-era abuses is necessary.

Rules that expanded ATF’s authority, changed legal definitions, burdened firearm dealers, and threatened gun owners with criminal penalties should be eliminated.

But a temporary rollback is not the same as restoring a constitutional right.

The same agency will remain in place. The same federal gun-control statutes will remain available. And the same regulatory infrastructure could be turned against gun owners the moment political control in Washington changes.

Texas Gun Rights warned about this danger when Blanche and Cekada first announced ATF’s “new era of reform.”

A quieter, more disciplined ATF may attract less public opposition, but it can still enforce the National Firearms Act, maintain firearm-record systems, and provide the next anti-gun administration with the machinery needed to revive abandoned policies.

Gun Owners Need Measurable Action

Blanche should be judged by concrete results.

Will DOJ permanently withdraw Biden-era rules that exceeded ATF’s lawful authority?

Will it stop treating shifting agency interpretations as substitutes for laws passed by Congress?

Will it oppose federal policies that turn firearm records into the foundation for tracking lawful gun owners?

And will the department support Congress in repealing the National Firearms Act and dismantling ATF?

An attorney general cannot repeal federal statutes alone. That power belongs to Congress.

But the attorney general controls federal litigation strategy, agency priorities, regulatory actions, and many of the enforcement decisions that directly affect gun owners.

That gives Blanche substantial power to determine whether DOJ continues defending the federal gun-control establishment — or begins working to take it apart.

Texas Senators Should Demand Commitments

With Blanche’s nomination headed to the Senate floor, Texas Sens. John Cornyn and Ted Cruz should demand clear Second Amendment commitments before confirmation.

General promises to “protect gun rights” are not enough.

Texas gun owners deserve to know whether Blanche will end abusive regulatory practices, oppose unconstitutional restrictions, prevent ATF from rebuilding a national gun-owner tracking system, and support the permanent repeal of federal gun-control laws.

Rolling back bad rules is worth doing.

But those rollbacks must not become an excuse for preserving the agency that imposed them.

Todd Blanche’s nomination presents an opportunity for a major change in direction at the Justice Department. Whether that opportunity produces lasting results will depend on what happens after the speeches, hearings, and confirmation votes are over.

Texas Gun Rights will judge Blanche’s tenure by the federal gun-control powers his department helps eliminate — not by how smoothly ATF operates under new management.

SIGN THE PETITION: ABOLISH THE ATF & REPEAL THE NFA

Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights fight for the complete dismantling of the federal gun-control machine.

Flock’s Surveillance Grid Is Taking Flight Over Texas

TXGR Staff — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 15:29:49 +0000

Fort Worth has connected automated police drones to its license-plate readers and real-time crime center. Texas Gun Rights warns that today’s limited program could become tomorrow’s warrantless tracking machine.

Government always asks gun owners to judge new powers by the promises of the politicians creating them.

History tells us to judge those powers by what the worst future administration could do with them.

That warning now applies to Flock Safety’s expanding surveillance network.

Texas Gun Rights recently exposed how Flock license-plate readers can record where Texans travel, identify visits to gun stores and shooting ranges, and create a backdoor method of cataloging gun owners through their lawful movements.

Now that surveillance system is leaving the roadside and taking flight.

Fort Worth Connects Drones to the Flock Network

The Fort Worth Police Department launched a Drone as First Responder program with Flock Safety in June.

Under the program, drones can launch from automated docks following qualifying 911 calls, license-plate-reader alerts, or gunshot-detection alerts. They can reach nearby incidents within minutes and transmit live video to officers, dispatchers, and the department’s real-time crime center.

This is not a stand-alone police drone launched by an officer already at a scene.

It is part of an integrated network connecting cameras, vehicle information, alerts, dispatch systems, and live aerial surveillance.

Flock markets its Alpha drone as capable of reading license plates from as far as 2,000 feet away. The system also offers thermal imaging, low-light capabilities, night vision, zoom, and direct integration with license-plate readers and gunshot-detection systems.

A camera mounted beside a road records vehicles passing one fixed location.

A drone can move.

It can be redirected, observe a scene from above, follow activity across a wider area, and send live footage into the same system already collecting license-plate data.

That is a major expansion of surveillance power.

The Real Danger Is Who Controls It Next

Fort Worth and Flock say the drones will only deploy in response to specific incidents rather than conduct general patrols.

They also say each flight will be logged, the camera will face the horizon while traveling, and a public dashboard will provide information about how the drones are used.

Those promises may describe the program today.

They are not permanent legal limits.

Department policies can be rewritten. Vendor practices can change. Data-sharing agreements can expand. A future city council, police chief, prosecutor, or federal partner could inherit the same machinery and use it far more aggressively.

Gun owners have already seen that pattern with ATF.

Federal politicians created supposedly limited powers and regulatory systems. Later administrations stretched those powers, changed definitions, and used agency rules to threaten Americans who had committed no violent crime.

The problem was not only who controlled ATF when the power was created.

The problem was that the machinery existed for a future gun-ban administration to weaponize.

Flock creates the same institutional danger.

“ATF taught gun owners what happens when government builds an enforcement machine and promises it will be used responsibly,” said Chris McNutt, president of Texas Gun Rights. “The politicians change, the mission expands, and yesterday’s narrow power becomes tomorrow’s weapon.”

“Texas must not hand future gun-ban politicians a camera-and-drone dragnet capable of tracking Texans from the highway into the sky and then beg them to show restraint.”

Texas Must Regulate the Entire Surveillance System

Texas law cannot focus only on cameras mounted on poles.

Lawmakers must address the entire integrated surveillance network, including automated drones, aerial plate recognition, thermal observation, retention of video and location data, cross-agency access, and drone launches triggered by automated alerts.

Law enforcement should investigate specific criminal suspects based on probable cause.

It should not build a permanent system capable of following the movements and associations of millions of Texans who have never been accused of a crime.

During the 2025 legislative session, State Rep. Brian Harrison introduced H.B. 961 to restrict automatic license-plate readers, require warrants or court orders in many circumstances, limit data sharing, and require the destruction of unrelated records. The bill died without receiving a vote.

The next proposal must go further.

It must ensure that license-plate readers cannot automatically trigger aerial tracking without adequate legal safeguards. It must limit how long agencies retain drone footage and plate information. And it must stop local, state, and federal agencies from combining separate databases into one warrantless surveillance grid.

Flock’s system may be sold today as a faster way to respond to emergencies.

Texas must write its laws based on what that system could become tomorrow.

SIGN THE PETITION: STOP FLOCK’S BACKDOOR TRACKING OF GUN OWNERS

Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights stop warrantless surveillance from being weaponized against law-abiding gun owners.

DOJ Is Finally Suing Gun-Ban States — Now It Must Deliver Lasting Victories

TXGR Staff — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 15:29:15 +0000

The Justice Department has launched a coordinated legal offensive against state and local gun restrictions. Texas Gun Rights says the campaign must produce binding precedent that survives the next administration.

The United States Department of Justice is finally going on offense against gun-ban states and cities.

Through its dedicated Second Amendment Section, led by former TXGR board Chairman Barry Arrington, the DOJ has filed lawsuits challenging restrictions on commonly owned rifles, standard-capacity magazines, handguns, carry permits, and other protected conduct.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon says the department has pursued more than a dozen challenges as part of a deliberate strategy to create broader legal precedent instead of attacking every infringement individually.

That shift is long overdue.

But lawsuits and press releases are not victories by themselves.

Gun owners should judge this campaign by whether DOJ secures injunctions, final judgments, and appellate decisions that permanently limit the gun confiscation lobby’s power.

DOJ Goes on Offense

The Civil Rights Division’s Second Amendment Section is authorized to investigate patterns of infringement, file original lawsuits, intervene in existing cases, submit briefs, and seek other opportunities to expand legal protection for the right to keep and bear arms.

That authority is already being used.

DOJ sued Los Angeles County over extreme delays in processing carry permits after reviewing more than 8,000 applications. According to the department, only two applications had been approved, while some interviews were scheduled as far as two years into the future.

The department later sued Denver over its ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and Colorado over its prohibition on standard-capacity magazines.

On July 1, DOJ filed separate lawsuits against California and Virginia. The California case targets the state’s Glock restrictions and handgun roster, while the Virginia case challenges a law criminalizing the commercial purchase and sale of AR-15-style rifles.

The Second Amendment Section has also opened investigations and filed additional challenges involving jurisdictions such as Philadelphia, the District of Columbia, and Montgomery County, Maryland.

The Strategy Is Bigger Than One Lawsuit

DOJ’s stated strategy is to select cases capable of producing decisions with broader reach.

Conflicting appellate rulings over rifle bans, magazine restrictions, and other major Second Amendment questions can create opportunities for the Supreme Court to intervene and establish nationwide standards.

That is more valuable than winning a temporary concession from one hostile city.

A binding appellate decision can restrict gun-ban politicians across an entire federal circuit. A Supreme Court ruling can destroy the legal foundation for similar restrictions nationwide.

But the opposite is also true.

A poorly selected case or weakly argued appeal can leave destructive precedent in place for years.

This campaign must therefore be measured by the law it changes — not simply the number of complaints DOJ files.

“For decades, the Justice Department stood by while gun-ban politicians forced law-abiding Americans to spend their own money defending rights the government was supposed to protect,” said Chris McNutt, president of Texas Gun Rights.

“Suing these jurisdictions is long overdue — but we do not need political theater. We need court orders that crush these gun bans and leave the gun confiscation lobby nowhere to hide.”

These Victories Must Survive Washington

This litigation campaign is fundamentally different from temporary regulatory rollbacks.

An administration can reverse enforcement policy, withdraw guidance, or rewrite agency rules. Binding judicial precedent is harder for the next anti-gun administration to erase.

That is why DOJ must pursue cases through final judgment and appeal when necessary.

The department must also resist settlements that allow gun-ban jurisdictions to make cosmetic changes while preserving the substance of an infringement.

The goal should not be to negotiate slightly less abusive gun restrictions.

The goal should be to defeat them.

Texas Gun Rights welcomes a Justice Department willing to treat the Second Amendment as a civil right and use federal power against state and local officials who violate it.

But gun owners should demand lasting results.

Every unconstitutional rifle ban overturned, every standard-capacity magazine prohibition struck down, and every abusive permitting system dismantled makes it harder for the gun confiscation lobby to rebuild its agenda.

Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights hold gun-ban politicians accountable and fight for permanent victories against unconstitutional gun laws.

Boebert Bill Would Repeal Federal Handgun Mailing Ban

TXGR Staff — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 15:28:59 +0000

The Freedom to Ship Act would remove a nearly century-old gun-control law and challenge discriminatory restrictions imposed by private shipping carriers.

The Justice Department has already concluded that the federal ban on mailing handguns violates the Second Amendment.

Now Congress has a chance to remove that restriction from federal law.

Rep. Lauren Boebert of Colorado introduced H.R. 9979, the Freedom to Ship Act, to repeal the handgun-mailing prohibition and protect lawful firearm shipments through common carriers.

Texas Congressman Michael Cloud is among the bill’s cosponsors.

DOJ Found the Mailing Ban Unconstitutional

Congress enacted the federal handgun-mailing ban in 1927.

Now codified at 18 U.S.C. § 1715, the law generally prohibits ordinary citizens from mailing pistols, revolvers, and other concealable firearms outside limited exceptions.

In January, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the restriction is unconstitutional as applied to firearms protected by the Second Amendment, including handguns.

The opinion found that the law burdens Americans seeking to transport, receive, repair, or maintain firearms for lawful purposes. It also found no historical tradition supporting a general prohibition on shipping constitutionally protected arms.

DOJ therefore determined that federal prosecutors should not enforce § 1715 against protected firearms and that the Postal Service should revise its regulations.

The Postal Service responded in April by proposing rules that would allow lawful handguns to be mailed under many of the same conditions applied to rifles and shotguns. Those rules would still require compliance with the Gun Control Act and applicable state and local laws.

But administrative policy is not repeal.

Section 1715 remains in federal law, leaving open the possibility that a future administration could attempt to revive enforcement.

Freedom to Ship Act Goes Further

The Freedom to Ship Act would permanently repeal the federal handgun-mailing prohibition.

It would also confront private-carrier policies that leave many ordinary gun owners without a practical way to ship lawful firearms.

Major carriers frequently restrict firearm shipments to federally licensed businesses operating under specially approved agreements. These policies can make lawful repairs, transfers, and transportation more difficult and expensive.

Boebert’s office says the bill would prevent common carriers from forcing federal firearms licensees into restrictive contracts and imposing excessive fees for firearm shipments. The legislation has been endorsed by the National Association for Gun Rights and other national gun-rights organizations.

The bill would not erase existing laws governing who may possess, purchase, or receive a firearm.

It would remove special transportation barriers imposed on otherwise lawful conduct.

Texas Lawmakers Should Join Michael Cloud

Congressman Michael Cloud deserves credit for supporting the Freedom to Ship Act.

The rest of the Texas congressional delegation should join him.

Law-abiding gun owners should not be forced to depend on temporary DOJ policy while an unconstitutional statute remains on the books. Nor should private carriers be allowed to impose arbitrary barriers on lawful firearm commerce.

Texas Gun Rights calls on every member of the Texas delegation to cosponsor H.R. 9979 and demand congressional action on the Freedom to Ship Act.

The Second Amendment must not be treated as a second-class right.

Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights fight every government mandate and corporate policy that infringes on your right to keep and bear arms.

Jasmine Crockett Joins Democrats Fighting ATF Gun-Rule Rollbacks

TXGR Staff — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 15:28:43 +0000

House Judiciary Democrats want ATF to abandon a sweeping regulatory package, but Texas Gun Rights warns that rolling back abusive rules is only the first step.

House Judiciary Democrats are demanding that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives abandon its effort to roll back federal gun regulations.

The July 29 letter, led by Reps. Jamie Raskin and Lucy McBath, attacks a package of 34 proposed and final regulatory actions announced by ATF in April.

Texas Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett signed the demand.

Democrats characterize the changes as dangerous deregulation that would weaken background checks, firearm tracing, dealer oversight, and enforcement of the National Firearms Act.

Gun owners should see the letter for what it is: an attempt to preserve the federal gun-control machinery built and expanded during the Biden administration.

But rolling back bad regulations is not enough.

The ultimate goal must be to dismantle the machinery that made those abuses possible.

Democrats Demand ATF Withdraw the Rules

ATF announced the regulatory package on April 29, describing it as an effort to reduce unnecessary burdens on law-abiding gun owners and firearm businesses.

The agency said many existing regulations no longer reflect current law, agency practice, or court precedent.

The Democratic letter objects to proposed changes involving who is considered “engaged in the business” of selling firearms, remote firearm transactions, mental-health-related prohibitions, firearm records, and stabilizing braces.

Raskin, McBath, Crockett, and the other signers demanded that ATF withdraw the proposals, prepare a cumulative public-safety analysis, brief Congress, and answer 27 questions by September 1.

Their message is clear: the Biden-era regulatory structure should remain intact.

That includes rules that expanded ATF’s reach over private firearm sales, placed millions of stabilizing-brace owners at risk of NFA penalties, and strengthened the federal government’s firearm-record infrastructure.

Crockett Sides With Washington Gun Control

Crockett joined Democrats in claiming the rollbacks would make it harder to investigate gun crimes, trace firearms, supervise dealers, and prevent prohibited people from obtaining guns.

The letter also attacks proposals that would narrow ATF’s dealer rule and remove the agency’s stabilizing-brace restrictions.

But gun owners have already seen what happens when ATF is allowed to stretch vague federal statutes beyond their limits.

The agency changes definitions, expands regulatory power, and threatens Americans with criminal penalties for conduct that was previously lawful.

ATF’s decision to reconsider those policies is not a threat to the Second Amendment.

The threat is the regulatory system Democrats are fighting to preserve.

Reform Is Not the Final Victory

Texas Gun Rights supports rolling back rules that burden lawful gun owners and dealers.

But gun owners should not confuse a friendlier or more efficient ATF with restored freedom.

Texas Gun Rights has previously warned that the agency’s “new era of reform” could make ATF more politically sustainable without eliminating its power to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.

The same warning applies to ATF’s firearm-record proposals.

Reducing how long records are retained does not destroy the tracking system. A future administration could expand those databases, revive abandoned rules, and weaponize the same infrastructure against gun owners.

The Biden-era dealer rule should be rolled back.

The stabilizing-brace rule should be eliminated.

ATF’s gun-owner records system should be dismantled.

But the fight cannot end with regulatory reform.

As long as ATF exists and the National Firearms Act remains federal law, another anti-gun administration can rebuild the same enforcement apparatus.

Texas Gun Rights calls on Congress to reject Crockett’s demand, allow the rollbacks to proceed, and go further by abolishing ATF and repealing the NFA.

SIGN THE PETITION: ABOLISH THE ATF & REPEAL THE NFA

Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights dismantle federal gun-control machinery and defend your right to keep and bear arms.

Federal Court Strikes Down Key NFA Restrictions on Untaxed Firearms

TXGR Staff — Wed, 05 Aug 2026 20:02:22 +0000

A Texas federal judge ruled that Congress destroyed the constitutional foundation for major National Firearms Act restrictions when it reduced the underlying taxes to zero.

A federal court in Texas dealt a major blow to the National Firearms Act on August 5, ruling that several NFA registration, application, approval, and enforcement provisions are unconstitutional as applied to firearms Congress no longer taxes.

U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered judgment for the plaintiffs in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and the consolidated Jensen v. ATF case.

The ruling applies to silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and firearms classified as “any other weapons,” or AOWs.

But the court stayed its judgment for seven days, giving the federal government time to seek relief from an appellate court.

Congress Eliminated the Tax but Kept the Burdens

Congress enacted the National Firearms Act in 1934 under its constitutional authority to impose and collect taxes.

For decades, the federal government required Americans to pay a tax before making or transferring an NFA-regulated firearm. Congress then used that tax as the basis for an extensive regulatory system involving applications, registration, fingerprints, photographs, government approval, recordkeeping, and severe criminal penalties.

That changed when Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025.

Effective January 1, 2026, the law reduced the NFA making and transfer taxes to $0 for silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs.

Congress left the surrounding regulatory system in place.

Judge Hendrix ruled that Congress could not continue using its taxing power to support regulations connected to a tax that no longer raises any revenue.

“The challenged NFA provisions are unconstitutional,” the court stated.

According to the opinion, the NFA’s registration and approval requirements were designed to support the collection of the making and transfer taxes. Once Congress eliminated those taxes, it also eliminated the constitutional foundation for the regulations tied to them.

ATF’s Backup Arguments Failed

The Department of Justice argued that the challenged requirements still helped enforce a separate occupational tax paid by certain firearm manufacturers, importers, and dealers.

The court rejected that argument.

The occupational tax has its own statutory registration and enforcement system. The challenged provisions governing the making, transfer, registration, and possession of individual firearms were tied to the now-zeroed making and transfer taxes.

The court also rejected the government’s reliance on the Necessary and Proper Clause, warning that the government’s theory would allow Congress to impose sweeping federal regulations on ordinary Americans merely by connecting them to some distant tax.

DOJ separately argued that the restrictions could be upheld under Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce.

That argument failed as well.

The court emphasized that the NFA was enacted as a taxing statute, remains located in the Internal Revenue Code, and does not contain the interstate-commerce language Congress regularly uses when legislating under the Commerce Clause.

The court contrasted the NFA with the Gun Control Act, which expressly regulates firearms moving in or affecting interstate commerce.

Congress may pass new legislation under a valid constitutional power, but the executive branch cannot retroactively rewrite the legal foundation of an existing statute after its original justification disappears.

As the court explained, any attempt to rebuild the NFA’s regulatory scheme must come from Congress — not ATF, DOJ, or the judiciary.

The Court Did Not Reach the Second Amendment

The plaintiffs also argued that the challenged NFA provisions violated the Second Amendment.

The court did not decide that issue.

Because the plaintiffs prevailed on their enumerated-powers claim and received injunctive relief, the court concluded that it was unnecessary to address the separate Second Amendment challenge.

Those claims were dismissed without prejudice as abandoned.

That means the ruling does not decide whether silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, or AOWs are independently protected from NFA regulation under the Second Amendment.

The Injunction Is Not Nationwide

Gun owners must understand the limits of the judgment.

The court did not issue a universal injunction protecting every American. It applies to the named plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members, and current and future customers.

Members of the plaintiff associations may receive protection once the injunction takes effect. But Texas residency — or membership in Texas Gun Rights — does not independently place someone within the protected group.

Customer protection is also narrow. It covers transactions involving a protected commercial plaintiff or a qualifying commercial member of one of the plaintiff associations. Purchasing an item from one of those businesses does not provide blanket protection for unrelated NFA firearms or transactions.

The court also declined to extend relief to an association’s general supporters or to family members merely because they live with someone covered by the injunction.

Most importantly, the judgment is stayed for seven days from August 5. During that period, gun owners should continue treating existing NFA application, registration, approval, and transfer requirements as enforceable.

The federal government may ask the Fifth Circuit to keep the injunction on hold during an appeal. Texas Gun Rights will continue monitoring the case and report any change in its legal effect.

A Serious Blow to the NFA

This ruling exposes the weakness at the heart of the federal government’s position.

Congress cannot use a tax as the constitutional excuse for regulation after eliminating the tax itself.

When the revenue disappears, the claimed taxing authority disappears with it.

ATF cannot keep enforcing a registration and approval system simply because federal bureaucrats want that system to survive.

The government is likely to appeal, and the seven-day stay means the legal fight is far from over.

But the court’s message is clear: Federal agencies do not possess unlimited power, and they cannot manufacture constitutional authority after Congress removes the foundation beneath their regulations.

Texas Gun Rights will continue fighting for the complete repeal of the NFA’s restrictions on silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and other commonly possessed arms.

Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights keep fighting for your gun rights.

Seattle Festival Shootout Exposes the Failure of Gun-Free Zones and Criminal Gun Laws

TXGR Staff — Wed, 05 Aug 2026 14:34:54 +0000

The deadly shooting at Seattle’s largest food festival is already being reduced to another example of “gun violence.”

But the facts point to a much different lesson.

Police believe at least three people exchanged gunfire during the Bite of Seattle festival, including a 15-year-old now in juvenile custody, a 19-year-old suspected shooter who died at the scene, and at least one unidentified participant. Two apparent bystanders were killed, while four others — including a two-year-old child — were wounded. Investigators believe the confrontation may have been gang-related.

This was not a case in which otherwise lawful gun ownership suddenly produced violence.

It was an apparent public gunfight involving people already ignoring Washington’s extensive firearm restrictions.

Nearly Every Relevant Act Was Already Illegal

Police say the 15-year-old possessed an unserialized Polymer80 handgun equipped with a 33-round magazine.

Investigators also recovered a Glock 45 fitted with a conversion device allowing automatic fire and an extended magazine holding roughly 40 rounds. Police believe the converted Glock was fired during the shootout.

Washington law already prohibits knowingly possessing, receiving, transporting, purchasing, or transferring an untraceable firearm, subject to narrow exceptions. State law also generally prohibits possession of machine guns and parts intended to convert ordinary firearms into machine guns.

The arrested suspect was 15 years old.

Washington permits minors to possess firearms only under limited circumstances, including supervised training, hunting, target shooting, authorized competition, travel to those activities, or possession at home with parental permission. Carrying a handgun into a crowded festival gunfight plainly falls outside those exceptions.

The suspected shooters were not waiting for lawmakers to enact another restriction.

They were already ignoring the laws on the books.

The Festival’s Weapons Ban Did Not Stop Them

The Bite of Seattle’s published terms prohibited weapons and authorized searches of attendees, vehicles, and belongings.

That policy did not prevent several armed individuals from entering the event and opening fire.

It did, however, tell ordinary attendees to enter without weapons and depend entirely on event security and police protection.

That is the central weakness of gun-free-zone policies: they are most reliably followed by people who never intended to hurt anyone.

A posted rule cannot physically stop a gang member, prohibited juvenile, or armed criminal already willing to commit assault and murder.

“Seattle had a weapons prohibition, age restrictions, laws against untraceable firearms, and a ban on machine-gun conversion devices,” Texas Gun Rights Foundation President Chris McNutt said.

“The suspected shooters ignored all of them. The lesson is not that peaceful citizens need another restriction. The lesson is that violent offenders do not become harmless because politicians declared an area gun-free.”

Frontline Police Responded—The Policies Failed

Police officers assigned to the festival heard the shots and rapidly moved toward the gunfire. They rendered aid, began securing the scene, and took one suspected shooter into custody.

Their response should not be confused with the failures that allowed multiple armed participants to enter a supposedly weapons-free event.

Nor should the tragedy be used to blur the distinction between criminal firearm misuse and lawful gun ownership.

Calling every criminal shooting “gun violence” places the focus on the object rather than the people who deliberately ignored laws, event rules, and the lives of everyone around them.

It also creates political pressure for more restrictions on citizens who had nothing to do with the crime.

Another Law Is Not a Substitute for Enforcement

The Seattle shooting does not prove that criminal laws are unnecessary.

It proves that laws are not self-enforcing.

A serial-number requirement did not stop a prohibited juvenile from obtaining an unserialized handgun.

Washington’s machine-gun prohibition did not keep a conversion device off the street.

Age restrictions did not prevent minors and young adults from possessing handguns in public.

And the festival’s weapons ban did not keep guns out of the crowd.

The appropriate response is to determine how the suspected shooters obtained the firearms, identify every participant, disrupt the criminal networks involved, and impose meaningful consequences on those responsible.

It is not to punish lawful adults who complied with every existing restriction.

Punishing Lawful Gun Owners Misses the Point

Several important questions remain unanswered, including who fired the fatal rounds, who possessed the converted Glock, how each firearm was obtained, and what prior criminal or gang contacts the suspected shooters may have had.

Those facts should be established before officials use the tragedy to demand still more limits on lawful firearm ownership.

Two innocent people lost their lives in a place that promised weapons were prohibited.

Their families deserve more than another round of slogans.

They deserve an honest acknowledgment that people already forbidden from possessing the weapons involved were willing to ignore the law and fire into a crowded public event.

Texas Gun Rights Foundation will continue educating the public about the difference between violent criminal conduct and the peaceful exercise of the Second Amendment.

Those who support fact-based Second Amendment education can chip in to Texas Gun Rights Foundation and help expose policies that disarm lawful citizens while failing to stop violent offenders.

Flock Cameras Can Track Gun Owners. Congress Is Fighting Back — Texas Must Act Next

TXGR Staff — Wed, 05 Aug 2026 14:34:37 +0000

Congressman Tim Burchett is taking aim at the growing government surveillance state.

His newly introduced H.R. 9800, the Protection Against Mass Surveillance Act, would prohibit federal agencies from purchasing, operating, accessing, or contracting for Flock cameras and other automated systems that identify and track Americans.

The bill also targets facial recognition and biometric surveillance, blocks state and local governments from using federal funds for covered systems, and requires illegally obtained federal data to be deleted and kept out of court.

Texas Gun Rights says the bill is an important first strike.

But it will not stop the surveillance network already spreading across Texas.

Texas Is Building the Network

Flock cameras record license plates, vehicle characteristics, dates, times, and locations. Linked together, those records can reveal where someone travels, which locations they visit, and whom they associate with.

Fort Worth reported operating approximately 250 Flock cameras in 2024, with captured data generally stored by Flock Safety for 30 days. Dallas later authorized a three-year Flock contract worth up to $5.74 million.

Texas DPS also operates a License Plate Reader Program requiring participating agencies to contribute plate reads to its system. DPS documents describe pooling and sharing data among local, state, and federal law-enforcement agencies.

This is no longer a handful of cameras checking for stolen vehicles.

It is the framework for a statewide tracking network capable of reconstructing the movements of Texans who have never been accused of a crime.

A Backdoor Method of Tracking Gun Owners

Gun owners have every reason to be alarmed.

Congressman Scott Perry has publicly warned that Flock cameras were used at the Ocala Shooting Range in Florida, recording vehicles entering and leaving a public firearms facility.

Those motorists were not necessarily criminal suspects. They were arriving to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The government does not need the serial number of every rifle in Texas if it can identify vehicles repeatedly visiting shooting ranges, gun stores, gun shows, training facilities, and gun-rights meetings.

That creates a backdoor method of identifying and cataloging gun owners through their lawful movements and associations.

“The government does not need your rifle’s serial number if it can track every trip you make to the range, gun store, gun show, or gun-rights meeting,” Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt said.

“That is a gun-owner registry built from your movements instead of a Form 4473.”

Austin Buried the Fight Once

State Representative Brian Harrison attempted to rein in automatic license-plate readers during the 2025 legislative session with H.B. 961.

His bill would have required a warrant or court order, limited the use of plate-reader data to violent-crime investigations, required prompt destruction of unrelated records, restricted data sharing, and required agencies to publish annual reports.

Austin politicians referred the bill to committee and allowed it to die without a vote.

Texas Gun Rights says that cannot happen again.

The organization is calling on lawmakers to revive and strengthen Harrison’s proposal by banning warrantless government tracking, preventing Texas agencies from feeding Texans’ movements into federal or national databases, and requiring prompt deletion of information unrelated to legitimate criminal investigations.

Law enforcement should investigate criminals based on probable cause.

It should not record everyone’s movements and search through the database later.

One is targeted police work.

The other treats every Texan like a suspect.

Texas Cannot Wait on Washington

Burchett’s H.R. 9800 would shut federal agencies out of Flock networks and cut off federal funding for state and local use.

But it would not stop Texas cities, counties, and state agencies from financing the same surveillance machinery with state or local tax dollars.

That job belongs to the Texas Legislature.

“Congressman Burchett is right to confront the federal surveillance state,” McNutt said. “But Texas cannot wait on Washington while local governments build the same machinery with Texans’ money.”

“Austin buried this fight once. Texas Gun Rights intends to make sure lawmakers do not get away with it again.”

Texas Gun Rights is launching its “STOP FLOCK’S BACKDOOR TRACKING OF GUN OWNERS” Petition to pressure state lawmakers to act.