Category: A Victory!
by Lee Williams
Saturday was supposed to be a big sales day for Lock N’ Load Firearms, which is located in Southington, Connecticut. The gun shop has two major sales each year, and Saturday was its “Customer Appreciation Day.” The store spent a lot on advertising the event and on party goods. Several vendors came out for the sale.
The fun ended around 11:40 a.m., when the state’s computer system went down, and it stayed down throughout most of the day.
Josh, who works at the gun shop, estimates they lost thousands of dollars.
“Guns aren’t $200 or $300 anymore. They cost $600 or $800,” he said. “To set up an event like that, all the advertising, and then to not be able to sell firearms definitely hurt us. But here, it happens all of the time.”
The State of Connecticut does not allow gun dealers to run their own NICS computer checks. It insists on running the checks for them, as well as a half-dozen other state checks.
Josh said the state’s computer shutdowns are becoming far too common.
“I don’t know how to hold the state accountable,” he said. “I hate to think that a lawsuit is the answer, but that’s where we are at. We can’t flip the state reps and senators to get more fair representation at the state capitol.”
Matt, who works at The Gun Store in Waterbury, Connecticut, said the state’s computer shutdowns have become “random but consistent.”
“You can expect to go down every couple of days,” Matt said. “It’s more than I’ve ever experience in the past 20 years. I’m not saying that the State of Connecticut is intentionally doing it, but it’s been consistent enough lately.
If only they used NICS and circumvented all the other six or seven checks they use. The problem is that the state legislature added all these checks. It’s created massive amounts of confusion.”
Common names, he said, like “John Smith” have become a serious issue for the state’s computer systems, which lack the clarity of a NICS Unique Personal Identification Number or UPIN, which gun owners can apply for.
“If they have a NICS UPIN, you find out quickly that it’s not the ‘John Smith’ wanted for murder in Idaho,” he said.
At Central Connecticut Arms in Portland, Connecticut, staffer Ronnie said the shop lost thousands of dollars.
“We couldn’t sell any firearms. It was not a very good day,” he said. “Some customers put their purchases on layaway, which helped.”
The state had another major shutdown just a few weeks ago, Ronnie said.
“We were down for three days. They don’t explain when it’s going to be back up,” he said. “We just sit around here hoping it will be back up soon. It’s a major pain in the ass, man.”
Holly Sullivan is president of the Connecticut Citizens Defense League and serves on the board of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
She said there is growing speculation on whether the shutdown was an effort to prevent state residents from purchasing firearms.
“Unlike other states, FFLs are not allowed to use the NICS system themselves. The State of Connecticut acts as a middleman between the FFLs and the NICS system,” she said.
“The state does NICS and state-level checks. Usually, if there’s an IT issue, every FFL gets an email. None were sent on Saturday. This ‘breakdown’ was unusual. Generally, the state will say it’s an IT issue, but they didn’t do that this time.”
Hundreds of Connecticut gun shops were affected, she said.
“This is a symptom of a much larger problem,” she said. “The state wants to control us, but they’re not adequately doing their job. They don’t trust FFLs to do their job. People are denied their Constitutional rights. Let’s say if someone works offshore, it could be months before they get this opportunity again. And besides, Saturday at noon is prime time to buy guns!”
The state has an extreme anti-gun history, Sullivan explained.
“Attorney General William Tong—his hobby is being anti-gun,” she said. “Every legislative session, every anti-gun bill was proposed by Tong. And then he’d bring in his Mom’s Demand action crew. It’s an ongoing problem. Dealers lost a lot of money.”
Neither Connecticut Attorney General Tong nor Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection commissioner Ronnell A. Higgins, whose office is responsible for conducting the background checks, returned calls seeking their comments for this story.
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
We reported last month that several anti-gun measures that were still under consideration as California’s legislative session closed remained on track to be considered when lawmakers reconvened on August 3.
Five bad bills clear appropriations — now on to the floor
Now, five of those measures have, indeed, been passed in committee and are eligible for floor votes in the state Senate and Assembly.
According to a legislative update by the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, three bad Assembly bills were passed by the Senate Appropriations Committee and are now eligible for a vote on the Senate floor.
AB 1743 expands the database that leaked CCW holder data in 2022
Assembly Bill 1743 expands the state’s firearm owner data-sharing framework by increasing access to information maintained in California’s Automated Firearms System and related databases.
“Expanding this system raises significant concerns given California’s track record of protecting firearm owner data,” NRA-ILA explained. “In 2022, the California Department of Justice exposed the personal information of thousands of firearm owners and concealed carry permit holders in a widely reported data breach.”
AB 1753 expands red flag laws under the guise of “clarification”
AB 1753 “clarifies” California’s Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) violation framework by explicitly subjecting ammunition possession to the same hearing and enforcement procedures currently applied to firearms.
“Red flag laws have repeatedly stripped law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights while undermining basic due process protections,” NRA-ILA wrote. “Existing red flag laws in California should not be expanded under the guise of ‘clarification,’ but repealed.”
AB 2047 goes after 3D printers — the same play as New York’s Hochul law
Finally, AB 2047 targets 3-dimensional printers by restricting their sale or transfer unless equipped with so-called “firearm blueprint detection algorithms.”
“The bill represents a broad attack on lawful technology and raises concerns about free speech, innovation and the rights of law-abiding Californians,” NRA-ILA reported. “These concerns are not just realized by firearm owners, but tens of thousands of STEM educators and technology professionals.”
Zimmerit was not used on all German armored vehicles.
This early-production Tiger II with a Porsche turret lacks the stuff.
All real men are smitten with tanks. The latest M1A2 Abrams SEPv3 main battle tank weighs 149,000 lbs. and can beat 42 miles per hour on a decent road. Its Honeywell gas turbine engine puts out a cool 1,500 horsepower, while the tank’s 120mm M256 smoothbore cannon will reach out and kill stuff at 2½ miles. The Abrams is the very embodiment of serious military power.
Like many of today’s modern wonder weapons, it was the Nazis who really got the ball rolling. For all their well-documented moral depravity, the Germans during World War II were some undeniably snappy dressers. They also pioneered many of the weapon systems so critical to modern combined arms warfare.
Assault rifles, cruise missiles, and the attack submarine all had their genesis in Nazi weapons research labs. Additionally, it was Heinz Guderian’s Blitzkrieg that introduced the world to the modern main battle tank. Originally designed simply to get troops out of the trenches during World War I, by the late 1930s the Germans had developed the tank into something else entirely.
The Germans transformed the lumbering behemoths of the First World War into the dynamic armored arm of decision. While the Germans fielded dozens of different armored vehicle designs during the course of WWII, it was the vaunted Panther and Tiger getting all of the press.
Realistically, however, it was the humble assault guns, the StuGs and the Jagdpanzers that did most of the serious killing. These turretless, low-slung armored vehicles were relatively cheap. They also lent themselves to the defensive actions that defined the German war effort for the last two years of the conflict.
The common denominator of all those German armored vehicles was a curiously rough external finish. At a glance the stuff looks like drywall mud crudely contoured with a serrated trowel. The Germans applied this material to the steel armor of their tanks before their final coat of paint. They called this weird goop zimmerit.
The Hafthohlladung was a magnetic shaped-charge weapon the Germans developed for use against Allied tanks. Photo: baku13, CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia
The Königstiger Tiger II was the biggest, baddest German
production tank of the war. This example was captured in
Normandy and is covered in zimmerit anti-mine paste.
The Zimmerit Story
Zimmerit was a paste-like substance the Germans used to coat their armored fighting vehicles starting about mid-war and extending to the very end. Once set, zimmerit formed a hard, concrete-like covering atop the vehicle’s steel armor. The theory was the rough raised surface would preclude the attachment of magnetic antitank mines.
There were some concerns later in the war zimmerit might actually be flammable and contribute to the destruction of these vehicles in combat, but this turned out to be unfounded. For its intended purpose, zimmerit worked just fine.
The magnetostatic strength of a magnet decreases with the cube of distance. That’s the reason a magnet seems to snap in place once you get it close to a steel surface.
Magnets can be very powerful, but their effect is greatly diminised by range. By applying this rough stippled surface to their tanks, German engineers ensured magnetic mines could not get a firm grip with which to adhere.
Zimmerit began as a thick putty. It was applied at the factory and then flash hardened using blow torches. It was quite durable. Despite the innately rough environment in which these vehicles operated, the zimmerit remained relatively intact.
The vast majority of zimmerit exhibits the characteristic ridged pattern. Some StuG III assault guns had this material applied in a waffle configuration but it was unusual.
The ridged concrete-looking stuff on the side of this German Tiger Tank is zimmerit.
The Weapon
The reason the Germans went to all the trouble of slathering their armored vehicles in this sticky hard goo was the Hafthohlladung. Developed in 1942, the Hafthohlladung was also known colloquially in the German ranks as the Panzerknacker or “Tank Breaker.” This term was a derivation of the same word used to describe a safe cracker. The word literally translates to “Adhesive Hollow Charge.”
The Hafthohlladung consisted of a cone-shaped explosive charge mounted atop strong horseshoe magnets. The standard version weighed about 7 lbs. and was fired via a pull cord with a time delay. In practice, some very brave antitank troops would run up to an enemy tank, slap this thing in place, snatch the little ball out of the top to light the internal fuse, and scamper away.
The Hafthohlladung would punch through 5½” of rolled homogenous armor and was shockingly effective.
The zimmerit on some StuG III assault gun exhibited this curious waffle pattern.
The Problem
The truly curious bit, however, was the Germans were the only combatants during the war to field magnetic antitank mines. The Hafthohlladung was simply a cracking weapon, but nobody else used it. The Nazis went to all the trouble to create a countermeasure to a weapon only they utilized.
With the crystalline clarity of hindsight, every square inch of the zimmerit was utterly worthless — it was never used for its intended purpose, not one single time. War can be a funny thing indeed.
United States Attorney General Todd Blanche finalized a federal regulation governing the restoration of federal firearm rights. The new process allows eligible individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms to apply to have those rights restored.
“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety,” said Attorney General Todd Blanche. “This rule establishes a rigorous, common-sense process that protects the public while giving deserving Americans a real path to restoration.”
The signed rule has been transmitted to the Federal Register. DOJ cautions that the currently available text is unofficial until formally published.
A Restoration Process Congress Left Dormant for Decades
Section 922(g) prohibits certain categories of people (e.g., felons, domestic violence misdemeanants, unlawful drug users, fugitives, certain aliens, those under domestic violence restraining orders, etc.) from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms or ammunition in or affecting commerce.
Section 925(c), however, has long authorized the Attorney General to grant relief if the applicant shows they “will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety” and that granting relief “would not be contrary to the public interest.”
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) previously administered this process by delegation. Still, Congress defunded it via appropriations riders starting in 1992, rendering the program inoperative for over 30 years.
In March 2025, DOJ issued an interim final rule withdrawing the ATF delegation. In July 2025, it published a notice of proposed rulemaking with detailed criteria. After receiving over 15,500 comments (roughly 91% supportive of restoring a workable process), the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) finalized the rule.
The program will now be operated through the Office of the Pardon Attorney rather than ATF, although the Attorney General retains the ultimate decision-making authority.
When Will Applications Open?
The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, but DOJ plans to roll out the application process in stages.
According to the Department’s current Federal Firearm Rights Restoration website:
- Thirty days after publication, DOJ will begin inviting candidates to apply.
- Seventy-five days after publication, the application will open to the public, beginning with the first 5,000 applicants.
- At 120 days, DOJ will accept another 500 applicants and begin collecting the application fee.
The Department directs prospective applicants to justice.gov/ffrr for updated eligibility information, application instructions, and the eventual online application.
Who Will Be Presumptively Disqualified?
According to the DOJ, the rule aims to protect Second Amendment rights while ensuring public safety. Relief is discretionary and guided by statutory standards.
Several offenses are presumptively permanent disqualifications. These include violent felonies (homicide, kidnapping, terrorism, stalking, and other crimes of violence), convictions involving brandishing or discharging a firearm, sex offenses requiring registration under SORNA that also trigger a § 922(g) prohibition, and felony-level domestic violence.
There will also be other time-limited presumptive disqualifications, including drug trafficking convictions or misdemeanor domestic violence: at least 10 years after completing the sentence (including probation/supervised release), and other felony convictions: at least 5 years after completing the sentence.
Other statuses that are presumptively ineligible are being a fugitive from justice (§ 922(g)(2)), unlawfully present aliens or certain nonimmigrants (§ 922(g)(5)), and persons subject to qualifying domestic violence restraining orders (§ 922(g)(8)).
The final presumptively ineligible status is being an unlawful user of or addicted to controlled substances (§ 922(g)(3)) — until the pattern of use ends. That final category seems to be at odds with the United States Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Hemani. Still, the DOJ does not believe it is at odds because the Hemani opinion was narrow.
What the Supreme Court Held in Hemani
The Supreme Court held that the federal government could not prosecute Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) based solely on evidence that he regularly used marijuana while possessing a gun in his home. The government did not allege that Hemani was addicted, intoxicated when he possessed the firearm, incapable of managing his affairs, or dangerous to himself or others. Nor did it claim that he had misused the gun.
The Court rejected the government’s attempt to treat anyone who regularly used any amount of a controlled substance as categorically dangerous. Historical laws dealing with intoxication and “habitual drunkards” targeted different conduct, operated differently, and generally required more than the mere regular use of an intoxicating substance.
The Supreme Court nevertheless described its decision as narrow. It did not decide whether the government may disarm people who are addicted or presently intoxicated. It also did not decide whether § 922(g)(3) could be applied when the government presents individualized proof that a person’s drug use makes him dangerous—or proof that a particular drug always renders its users dangerous. The Court expressly declined to pass on those questions either way.
In short, mere regular marijuana use, without more, was insufficient to support the government’s automatic and categorical ban as applied to Hemani.
DOJ Creates a Marijuana Exception
In response to Hemani and the large number of public comments addressing marijuana, DOJ amended the final rule to create an important exception.
For purposes of the rule’s drug-related presumption, DOJ’s definition of “controlled substance” does not include marijuana. As a result, unlawful use of or addiction to marijuana alone does not trigger the same presumption of ineligibility that applies to users or addicts of other controlled substances. The Department also removed proposed requirements that applicants and their character references affirm that the applicant does not use or is not addicted to marijuana.
DOJ acknowledges that excluding marijuana addicts, not merely marijuana users, goes beyond the facts presented in Hemani. The Department says distinguishing a marijuana “user” from a marijuana “addict” would require a highly fact-specific inquiry that could undermine the administrability of the restoration process.
That does not mean marijuana use automatically restores anyone’s firearm rights or removes a federal disability under 922(g)(3). The statute remains on the books, and the relief process itself remains discretionary.
Instead, an applicant whose only drug-related issue involves marijuana may apply without facing the rule’s extraordinary-circumstances presumption. DOJ may still consider the applicant’s marijuana use and other individual circumstances when deciding whether restoration would be consistent with public safety and the public interest.
For controlled substances other than marijuana, the presumption remains. Someone who continues to qualify as an unlawful user or addict will generally be denied absent extraordinary circumstances. Because that disability is status-based, an individual may ordinarily remove himself from the prohibited category by ending the unlawful conduct and breaking the pattern of ongoing use.
What Applicants Must Submit
An applicant must complete the required form and disclose all federal firearm disabilities for which relief is requested. Required materials may include:
- Electronic fingerprints or properly completed fingerprint cards.
- Certified or otherwise reliable court records.
- Charging documents, judgments, plea agreements, and presentence reports.
- Proof that every requirement of the sentence has been completed.
- State criminal-history records for each jurisdiction in which the applicant has lived or been arrested during the applicable period.
- Relevant military, mental-health, domestic violence, citizenship-renunciation, or foreign records.
- Affidavits from three qualified character references.
- Authorization for DOJ to obtain additional background information.
The final rule shifts responsibility for local law-enforcement notification to DOJ. The Department will notify the appropriate chief law-enforcement officer for the locality where the applicant resides and allow that agency to submit information supporting or opposing restoration.
The application fee is $30 once the fee stage begins, up from the proposed $20. DOJ will periodically review the fee and conduct an audit after the program has operated long enough to produce reliable cost information. Applicants may request a fee waiver or reduction, including for economic hardship.
How DOJ Will Decide Who Gets Relief
The Attorney General may consider the applicant’s entire record, including criminal history, dismissed charges associated with a plea agreement, conduct while incarcerated or under supervision, time since completion of the sentence, rehabilitation, threats, restraining orders, drug use, mental health, character references, and information supplied by local law enforcement.
Significantly, the final rule also allows the Attorney General to consider whether denying relief under an applicant’s individual circumstances would infringe the applicant’s Second Amendment rights.
If relief is granted, DOJ will publish notice of the decision and the reasons for it in the Federal Register. Any restoration applies only to the federal disability addressed in the application. It does not erase independent state or tribal firearm prohibitions, and it does not protect an individual from a new disability arising from later conduct.
An applicant denied relief may petition the United States District Court for the district in which he resides for judicial review.