On Wednesday, I took a look at the Department of Justice's contingency plans for the Schumer shutdown and came away thinking that gun owners wouldn't feel much of an impact at all.
According to the American Suppressor Association, though, the shutdown has led to the ATF putting a halt to processing eForm4 applicationsn for suppressors... and presumably all other NFA items as well.
The DOJ's FY 2026 Contingency Plan stated that 89% of the department's 115,000 (or so) employees are excepted from government furloughs, including the vast majority of those who work for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
Excepted employees include: all agents in ATF’s field divisions, who conduct the full range of criminal investigations in the firearms, arson, explosives, alcohol, and tobacco program areas; Industry Operations Investigators who conduct compliance inspections of Federal firearms and Federal explosives licensees (including those mandated under the Safe Explosives Act), as well as application inspections; and other personnel who collect, review and analyze intelligence data in support of criminal investigations. Headquarters support will be maintained only to the extent necessary to support excepted operations.
The ATF eForms portal is still open, and FFLs can still certify and submit their applications online. But so long as the shutdown is in place, ATF examiners won't be reviewing or processing forms.
I'm honestly surprised that the ATF examiners aren't considered exceptions to the shutdown furloughs that have been issued. Those exceptions are supposed to include federal workers who are "essential for public safety and the protection of life and property." As President Trump declared in his executive action to protect our right to keep and bear arms, "the Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty."
So why didn't the Justice Department include these ATF examiners in the list of excepted employees? The NICS system is still up and running, so we can assume that the Justice Department does believe that being able to purchase a firearm in general is essential, but that completing a transaction for an NFA items isn't.
"The government shutdown is yet another reminder of why the National Firearms Act regulatory regime must be fully abolished," said ASA Vice President Owen Miller. "With eForm approvals measured in just days, any stoppage that could increase transfer times is concerning. It’s unacceptable that law-abiding citizens are left in limbo while Congress fights over federal funding. Our Second Amendment rights should not be held hostage to bureaucratic delays, and it’s clearer now more than ever why the unconstitutional NFA registration scheme must be ended.”
I agree with Miller, but it's also an unfortunate reminder that, despite the historic work the DOJ's Civil Rights Division is doing to safeguard our Second Amendment rights, the DOJ has also taken the position that the NFA only imposes "a modest burden" on gun owners seeking to purchase a suppressor.
In May, the DOJ filed a brief in U.S. v. Peterson that argued suppressors do enjoy some protection under the Second Amendment, and an outright ban would be unconstitutional, but the National Firearms Act’s registration and taxation requirement is constitutional because it "imposes a modest burden on a firearm accessory that is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition because suppressors are specially adaptable to criminal misuse."
Given that's the DOJ's position, I guess it makes sense that the department brass decided ATF examiners aren't essential to the agency's function or to the public safety. From a Second Amendment standpoint, though, the DOJ's viewpoint leaves a lot to be desired. For one thing, it opens the door for the government to impose similar "modest" burdens on other arms and accessories protected by the right to keep and bear arms. If paying a $200 tax on a suppressor is no big deal, then why would a $200 tax on a handgun or rifle be any more constitutionally suspect?
Being a little protected by the Second Amendment is kind of like being a little pregnant. Either something is protected by the Constitution or its not. A tax on a constitutionally protected item is either an infringement or its not. To declare that anything short of an outright ban on a protected arm is constitutionally compatible is downright dangerous, but that's essentially the position that DOJ has taken on suppressor ownership... and it helps to explain why, despite President Trump's executive action to protect our right to keep and bear arms, the processing of eForm4's has come to a screeching halt.
