On Thursday, October 23, 2025, the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) filed a Reply Brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934’s restrictions on short-barreled rifles in a case named Rush v. United States.
The NFA imposes tax and registration requirements on any rifle having a barrel shorter than 16 inches. A violation is punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment and a fine of up to $250,000, in addition to the forfeiture of the rifle. Jamond Rush was convicted under the NFA for possessing an unregistered short-barreled rifle and argues that it violates the Second Amendment.
In June, the NRA-ILA filed a Petition for Certiorari requesting that the Supreme Court hear the case and hold the regulations unconstitutional. The Petition emphasized the confusion among the lower courts over how to adjudicate restrictions on specific categories of arms—including not only short-barreled rifles, but also AR-style rifles and standard-capacity magazines—and the need for the Court to clarify and reinforce its precedents. The Petition further explained why the NFA’s restrictions on short-barreled rifles violate the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s test.
Earlier this month, the government filed its Response Brief opposing the Cert Petition. The government conceded that “some of the questions that petitioner raises may well warrant review,” but argued that the NFA’s restrictions are constitutional because short-barreled rifles “are especially susceptible to criminal misuse”—providing examples of the use of short-barreled shotguns a century ago by Al Capone’s henchmen and Bonnie and Clyde.
The Reply Brief filed today emphasizes that the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in this case—which the government did not defend—contradicts the Supreme Court’s precedents; reiterates that the case presents multiple issues that have divided lower courts; and argues that the NFA’s restrictions violate the Second Amendment.
Most Popular
