Essay

A Single Pro-2A Win Does Not Outweigh War, Tariffs, and State Ownership of Industry

The decision not to appeal the NFA ruling is a genuine advance for the right to keep and bear arms, but it does not outweigh an ongoing war, broad tariffs, and expanding government stakes in private industry, and Second Amendment voters can secure the gain without endorsing the administration.

The recent decision not to appeal a federal court injunction limiting National Firearms Act (NFA) registration and transfer requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and certain “any other weapons” (AOWs) is a genuine advance for the right to keep and bear arms. Congress had already zeroed the relevant making and transfer taxes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF (consolidated with Jensen v. ATF), U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled on August 5, 2026, that once the tax reached $0, the remaining registration scheme could no longer rest on Congress’s taxing power and was not saved by the Commerce Clause. The court issued a permanent injunction protecting the plaintiffs, their current and future members, and customers in their transactions with the commercial plaintiffs. The Department of Justice let the appeal window close; Solicitor General D. John Sauer notified Congress in late September that no appeal would be filed. On October 9, 2026, ATF issued guidance extending non-enforcement of the challenged provisions nationwide as a matter of policy.

Suppressors, SBRs, and similar items that had been treated as specially restricted for decades can now be acquired by covered parties (and, under the ATF guidance, more broadly) with a standard Form 4473 and NICS check rather than the old Form 4 process, tax stamp, and registry (state and local laws still apply, and moving an SBR or SBS across state lines still requires ATF approval on Form 20). Organizations and businesses that brought the case—Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Silencer Shop Foundation, Palmetto State Armory (PSA), SilencerCo, B&T USA, and others—deserve credit for the litigation that produced the injunction. Some advocates, including GOA in its September call to turn out for the midterms, therefore argue that voters who prioritize the Second Amendment should reward the current administration and its preferred candidates at the ballot box.

That conclusion does not hold under a perspective focused on liberty and justice. One discrete regulatory improvement, however welcome, does not outweigh a sustained pattern of aggressive war, elevated military spending, protectionist barriers to free exchange, and expanding government ownership stakes in private industry. Strategic choices about which candidates and administrations to support must account for the full scale of penalties and harms imposed, not selective praise for a single domain.

The Scale of the Anti-Liberty Ledger

The United States and Israel launched major coordinated strikes on Iran on February 28, 2026. The initial operations killed Iran’s Supreme Leader and targeted nuclear, military, and leadership sites. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks on Israel and U.S. interests in the region. An April ceasefire paused the main air campaign but produced no deal, and the conflict has continued, with intermittent strikes, attacks on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, a U.S. naval blockade, elevated oil prices, and ongoing military operations. Pentagon, Congressional Budget Office, and CSIS estimates put U.S. military costs in the tens of billions of dollars (roughly $33 billion to $42 billion by mid-2026), with 19 American military deaths as of September and thousands of Iranian deaths, including civilians. President Trump has publicly discussed further operations—“another little Epic Fury”—and has indicated that major action could follow the midterms if a deal is not reached. U.S. officials have reportedly told Gulf allies to prepare for a short, intense campaign after the midterms that could target Iranian infrastructure and nuclear sites. The administration has also pursued major increases in overall military budgets.

This is not a minor or defensive action. It is an offensive war of choice that has produced large-scale death and destruction, diverted resources, raised energy costs for American households, and expanded the military-industrial apparatus. The penalties—lost lives, destroyed property, higher taxes or debt to fund operations, and the precedent of regime-targeting strikes—are severe.

Beyond the war, trade and industrial policies have moved sharply against free markets. The administration imposed a steep increase in average tariff rates—estimated by the Fraser Institute to have risen five-fold in 2025, reaching around 16.8 percent and dropping the United States sharply in international trade-freedom rankings (from 60th to 125th on tariffs, and from 54th to 64th on overall trade freedom). Tariffs function as taxes on imports that raise costs for consumers and businesses, restrict the freedom to exchange goods across borders, and generate uncertainty through repeated announcements, reversals, and company-specific negotiations under Section 232 and other authorities. The Supreme Court ruled in February 2026 that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs at all, striking down the broad IEEPA-based tariffs, yet the administration pivoted to alternative statutory tools (Section 122, Section 232, and Section 301) to maintain elevated barriers. These measures distort market signals, protect favored industries at the expense of others, and reduce the liberty of Americans to buy and sell freely.

The administration has also expanded direct government ownership stakes in private companies at an unprecedented pace—announcing more than 40 deals (43 to 48, depending on how they are counted) involving equity or warrants totaling around $30 billion, concentrated in semiconductors, critical minerals, quantum computing, and related sectors. Notable examples include a 9.9 percent stake in Intel (funded in part by converting CHIPS Act grants), a “golden share” with veto rights in U.S. Steel, and stakes or warrants in firms such as MP Materials. Free-market advocates have criticized these moves as a departure from private ownership and voluntary exchange toward state-directed industrial policy, increasing the size of government and risking political influence over commercial decisions. Preliminary Fraser Institute estimates show a decline in U.S. economic freedom in 2025, driven in part by larger government (including these equity acquisitions), restricted trade, and weaker scores in areas related to property rights, judicial independence, and contract enforcement.

Fiscal outcomes reinforce the pattern. The federal deficit reached roughly $2 trillion ($1.99 trillion) in fiscal year 2026 amid record interest costs, tax changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill, higher spending including defense, and tariff refunds after the Supreme Court's IEEPA ruling, with projections of further elevated borrowing. These dynamics expand the state’s claim on resources and crowd out private economic activity.

An administration that delivers a limited 2A regulatory pause while conducting an ongoing war, erecting broad tariff barriers to free exchange, and taking equity stakes across strategic industries is, on net, reducing liberty for Americans. Free markets thrive on voluntary exchange, clear property rights, and limited state interference; the current record moves in the opposite direction on multiple high-impact fronts.

Offsetting the 2A Difference Without Endorsing the Package

Voters who prioritize the Second Amendment can still secure and expand the NFA-related gains without casting a ballot that endorses the administration’s broader record. The durable protection in the Texas case is the court injunction itself, which covers named plaintiffs, current and future members of organizational plaintiffs such as GOA and the Gun Owners Foundation, and customers of commercial plaintiffs (Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo, B&T USA, and Hot Shots Custom) in their transactions with those companies. ATF’s nationwide non-enforcement guidance is an agency policy choice that a future administration can reverse by memo; the injunction, by contrast, is a binding court order for the covered parties that was not appealed.

Practical steps that concentrate influence on pro-2A outcomes include:

Join Gun Owners of America (and related plaintiff organizations). The injunction covers current and future members, so membership brings the individual within the parties protected by the permanent injunction for the challenged NFA provisions (keep proof of membership; mere "supporters" and household family members are not covered). These groups litigated the case, and allied organizations are pressing related challenges, including Second Amendment attacks on remaining NFA elements, in other districts.
Direct economic support to the commercial plaintiffs—purchase suppressors, SBR components or complete firearms, and related products from Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo, B&T USA, and similar participants. Their status as plaintiffs extends coverage to customers for purchases made from them (not to purchases elsewhere). This is ordinary commerce that simultaneously funds the firms that shouldered the litigation and places buyers under stronger legal protection than the reversible ATF guidance alone.
Contribute to the legal funds and ongoing cases of these organizations. Parallel suits (including Second Amendment challenges still active in other courts) seek more permanent, nationwide, or constitutionally grounded relief rather than reliance on non-enforcement discretion.

These actions target the precise policy outcome—reduced federal registration and transfer barriers for suppressors and short-barreled firearms—through the actors who actually secured the injunction. They do not require rewarding an administration whose signature choices have included aggressive war, broad tariffs that tax free exchange, and expanding government equity stakes in private firms. The Strategic Liberty Coalition’s approach of evaluating candidates by the significance of penalties, the peacefulness of restricted conduct, the office’s capacity to change policy, and electoral viability treats the 2A gain as real but incomplete and non-decisive; the higher-magnitude harms of war, protectionism, and state industrial intervention dominate the ledger.

A policy is weighted by the severity of the restriction or penalty it imposes (or removes), the peacefulness of the underlying activity, the office’s ability to affect it, and the candidate’s viability. The NFA registration scheme for zero-tax items was a significant prior restraint on peaceful possession and transfer of arms; its partial dismantling is therefore valuable. Yet an ongoing regional war that has already cost tens of billions, produced substantial casualties, and risks further escalation imposes far larger and more certain harms. Broad tariffs restrict the liberty of free exchange and raise costs for ordinary people. Government equity stakes expand state power over private enterprise. The presidency has clear capacity to initiate or expand military action, set tariff policy, and direct equity deals; it also has capacity to direct the Justice Department on appeals. In this instance, the non-appeal was a positive choice on a narrow issue, but it does not erase the larger pattern.

Voters can register the 2A preference through the organizations and markets that produced the injunction while withholding electoral support from the package deal. That is how focused efforts advance specific gains in liberty and justice without becoming a captive constituency for politicians who expand war powers, tariff barriers, and state ownership in other domains. Single-issue gratitude is understandable; strategic accounting for the full record is more effective.

Sources

The NFA case

The Iran war

Tariffs, equity stakes, and economic freedom

The deficit

Nothing in this article is legal advice. Whether a particular purchase is covered by the injunction depends on your relationship to the plaintiffs and on your state's laws; consult an attorney.

This article is written from a perspective focused on liberty and justice, emphasizing free-market principles where relevant.