DOJ Retreats On Demanding Membership Lists from 2A Organizations

A federal judge in Louisiana issued a judgment on October 7, 2025, in Reese v. ATF that did two big things: it declared the federal handgun sales ban for 18–20-year-olds unconstitutional for certain plaintiffs, and it ordered three gun-rights groups – Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Louisiana Shooting Association (LSA) – to give the government a verified list of their members as of November 6, 2020. That came straight from the court’s original judgment signed by Judge Robert R. Summerhays. The disclosure order set a 21-day clock and lit up the Second Amendment world.

What the Original Judgment Actually Said

The original judgment entered declaratory relief for named plaintiffs and for members of FPC, SAF, and LSA who were members when the case was filed on November 6, 2020. It then enjoined enforcement of federal provisions that blocked handgun sales to 18–20-year-olds – but only within the Fifth Circuit (Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas) and only for those covered groups. Crucially, Paragraph 5 required those organizations to “provide to Defendants a verified list of their members” as of that date. That language created the clash: enforce the win, but at the price of exposing private membership rolls.

The Joint Motion That Changed the Trajectory

On October 10, 2025, both sides – the plaintiffs and the Department of Justice – filed a Joint Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment. Two edits were key. First, paragraph 2(b) would add that covered individuals are those “who are identified by Plaintiffs pursuant to paragraph 5.” Second, Paragraph 5’s command would change from “shall provide” to “may provide.” The motion asked the court to rule by October 14, 2025, to avoid an emergency filing. This was the pivot: what had been compelled disclosure became optional disclosure.

DOJ’s Stated Position on Membership Lists

The joint filing included a notable representation from DOJ: “The Government, as a general policy, does not compel disclosure of the identity of members of private organizations, and the Government did not seek to do so here.” The plaintiffs, for their part, asserted that the original order violates the First Amendment and would cause irreparable harm, citing Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021). The motion doesn’t concede that the amended scope is ideal; it simply avoids the ticking deadline while preserving plaintiffs’ appellate rights.

William Kirk Says the Facts Have Shifted

Attorney William Kirk of Washington Gun Law covered the turn. He walked through the original Paragraph 5 and why people were “rightly” upset about mandatory disclosure. Then he highlighted the new joint motion’s two changes – especially “shall provide” -> “may provide.” Kirk stressed that this “changes the complexion” of where the case is headed right now. He didn’t tell viewers what to think about Attorney General Pam Bondi, but he emphasized that the facts on which prior criticism rested have changed, and the community deserves the update.

Copper Jacket TV Frames It as a Backdown

William at Copper Jacket TV called it a “breaking” shift, saying “Bondi’s DOJ has caved” and signed onto changing the judgment to optional, not compelled, disclosure. He read from DOJ’s earlier proposal emphasizing that defendants need to know who is covered to comply with relief, and he argued that this fed the court’s original demand for lists. While he noted the DOJ didn’t explicitly ask the court to mandate handing over rolls, he said it “sure read” like they were nudging the court that direction. He credited public pushback for forcing the pivot.

Guns & Gadgets Raises a Skeptical Eyebrow

Jared Yanis of Guns & Gadgets gave a blunt update: DOJ and plaintiffs jointly asked to fix the order, but he questioned DOJ’s statement that it “did not seek” member identities “here,” pointing to past injunction fights over pistol braces, bump stocks, and FRT returns where the government asked how it could know who was covered without lists. He read the joint language, underscored the October 28 deadline in the original order, and asked whether this fix would have happened without the community going “up in arms.” His take: you decide – but stay vigilant.

Why This Is Fascinating From a Rights Perspective

This moment shows how associational privacy and injunctive clarity collide. Courts want clear lines on who’s covered. Advocacy groups want member anonymity, especially on hot-button issues like firearms. When a judgment draws a boundary – “members at filing” – someone must define who those members are, or the injunction risks becoming too vague to enforce. That’s why joint motion’s edits matter: optional identification lets groups control any disclosure – and it cools the First Amendment conflict without surrendering the underlying win.

The Fifth Circuit Scope Problem Isn’t Going Away

Another fight lurks in plain sight: scope. The original judgment is limited to the Fifth Circuit and limited to members at the time of filing (plus the named plaintiffs). As Copper Jacket TV noted, courts keep issuing member-limited relief even after finding parts of federal law unconstitutional. That creates a patchwork: a right recognized in substance, but narrow in reach, prompting confusion for gun shops, young adults, and law enforcement. If the Second Amendment is violated, why is the remedy membership-gated?

Practical Implications for 18–20-Year-Olds

For covered individuals inside the Fifth Circuit – Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas – the declaratory judgment and injunction say FFLs can sell handguns and handgun ammo to them. But retailers must know who is covered, or they risk enforcement. With the new “may provide” language, groups could choose to verify a member to a dealer, without bulk turnover to DOJ. That’s a practical middle path: implement relief case-by-case, protect privacy, and avoid creating a government list of gun-rights supporters.

Precision Without Exposure Is the Right Goal

Here’s where the law can be better: courts can require proof of coverage at the point of enforcement – say, affidavits or secure third-party verification – without demanding mass membership dumps to the government. That honors Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta principles and still gives officials a way to comply with injunctions. The joint motion nudges the system toward that balance. Credit to Washington Gun Law, Copper Jacket TV, and Guns & Gadgets for surfacing the tension and pressing for a cleaner solution.

Why the Community Pressure Still Matters

Even with DOJ’s statement that it didn’t seek lists here, the record shows that people noticed the danger, spoke up, and likely moved the needle. Kirk reported the facts changed. William framed it as DOJ “backing down” under pressure. Yanis asked the hard question – would this have happened without you? The lesson is simple and useful: public scrutiny can keep constitutional litigation honest, especially when privacy and rights enforcement cross wires.

What to Watch Next

Two timing notes matter. First, the parties asked the judge to rule by October 14, 2025. Second, the original membership-list deadline was October 28. If the court grants the joint motion, “shall provide” becomes “may provide,” relieving groups from compelled disclosure. Plaintiffs also preserved their right to appeal the judgment’s scope. As Washington Gun Law emphasized, the facts on the ground have already shifted; the next order will tell us if the court locks in this privacy-protective path.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others.

See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.