Judge Demands Gun Organization Turn Over Names of Its Members

A federal judge has ordered two of the country’s most prominent gun-rights groups, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), to hand over verified membership lists to the federal government as part of the long-running case Reese v. ATF.

The judgment, entered by U.S. District Judge Robert R. Summerhays, limits the injunction’s protection to a narrow slice of people and requires the groups to identify them by name for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Gun Owners of America (GOA) flagged the order on social media and, in a detailed video breakdown, GOA’s Ben Sanderson warned this could function as a “backdoor registry” of gun owners.

What the Case Is About – And Why It Matters

The underlying dispute centers on the federal ban that blocks licensed gun dealers from selling handguns and handgun ammunition to adults between 18 and 20. SAF and FPC filed Reese v. ATF to challenge that ban, arguing that 18- to 20-year-old adults are fully part of “the people” whose right to keep and bear arms is protected. Earlier this year, a Fifth Circuit panel agreed, holding the ban unconstitutional and sending the matter back to the district court for final judgment. On paper, that should have meant broad relief for young adults and the organizations that fought for them. In practice, the district court’s order did nearly the opposite.

The Order’s Narrow Relief – and a Membership Roll Call

According to SAF’s press release, the judgment restricts relief to those who (1) were members of SAF or FPC as of November 6, 2020, the day the case was filed, (2) live within the Fifth Circuit (Texas, Mississippi, Louisiana), and (3) are identified to the government within 21 days. SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut called the practical effect “almost laughable,” noting that the court both declares the ban unconstitutional and simultaneously allows its continued enforcement against “essentially zero” of the impacted population. In other words, unless you joined as a teenager five years ago, live in one of three states, and let your organization verify your name to the government, you get no protection – even after a constitutional win.

GOA’s Alarm: “A Registry by Any Other Name”

Ben Sanderson, hosting GOA’s Minuteman Moment, went straight at the order’s consequence: compelling a verified member roll is, in effect, a list of known gun-rights supporters, many of whom are gun owners. Sanderson emphasized that the Justice Department asked for this structure and convinced the judge to adopt it under the guise of “clarifying” who’s covered by the injunction. GOA’s point is simple and, frankly, persuasive: the government has long sought ways to correlate people to firearms activity; forcing civil-rights groups to cough up member lists – under threat of limiting constitutional relief – creates a chilling roadmap to do exactly that.

FPC’s Response: “Legally Baseless and Morally Bankrupt”

FPC didn’t mince words. In a statement, the organization blasted the judgment as “legally baseless and morally bankrupt,” accusing the court of parroting the government’s demand to “wipe away” the Fifth Circuit’s ruling and keep denying peaceable adults their rights. Most importantly, FPC drew a bright red line: “FPC has never provided a list of its members to the government – and never will.” The group says its lawyers are already taking steps to challenge the order and “commence appellate proceedings as necessary.” That stance, if it holds, sets up a legal collision over associational privacy that goes far beyond the Second Amendment.

SAF’s Warning on Free Association

SAF’s leadership framed the order as an assault on basic associational rights. Kraut underscored that SAF brings cases “on behalf of our members,” and when the organization wins, the “relief we’ve secured rightly flows through to the entire membership – not just a small subset.” 

Founder Alan Gottlieb added that the judgment “challenges commonly accepted standards of associational standing and relief.” I think they’re right to worry. Courts have long recognized that forcing civic organizations to disclose their member lists chills speech and participation – think of the seminal civil-rights cases where anonymity was a shield against government reprisal. The compelled verification here raises the same ghosts.

The DOJ’s Stated Rationale – and Why It Rings Hollow

According to GOA’s coverage, the Department of Justice argued that an injunction limited to “identified and verified” members was necessary to avoid vagueness and enforceability problems. That sounds tidy, but it dodges a crucial reality: courts routinely craft injunctions that apply to an organization’s membership without requiring names to be handed to the government. The judiciary can police the boundary through sworn declarations, internal verification processes, or court-supervised audits without building a government-held list. When the “solution” chosen is the most intrusive one, it’s fair to ask whether administrability is a pretext for surveillance.

The Fifth vs. Fourth Circuit Split – The Stakes Are Bigger Than One Case

Sanderson also reminded viewers that Reese v. ATF is playing out amid a live circuit split. The Fifth Circuit said the 18–20 handgun ban is unconstitutional; the Fourth Circuit said the opposite in Fraser v. ATF. That disagreement makes Supreme Court review more likely. Put differently, what happens in Reese isn’t just about this judgment or these plaintiffs – it’s a marker for where the law on young-adult handgun sales is heading nationwide. And the more the government (or a lower court) tries to shrink a constitutional win into irrelevance, the more oxygen they give to the narrative that only the Supreme Court can settle it.

What Happens if Groups Refuse to Hand Over Names?

FPC’s categorical refusal forces a hard question: if an organization declines to provide a list, does the court’s relief vanish for everyone – or does the court reconsider its approach? SAF said it is “examining our options in relation to the relief granted and will vigorously defend our members’ right to free association and privacy.” My view: a principled standoff is not only likely – it may be necessary. If the choice is “out your members” or “your win protects almost no one,” the correct legal and moral answer is to fight the disclosure demand and push the appellate courts to fix a judgment that undermines both the Fifth Circuit’s mandate and the First Amendment.

The Real-World Chilling Effect

Let’s be blunt: many Americans will not join a controversial civil-rights group if doing so might place their name on a list that ends up in a federal database. That’s not paranoia; it’s rational risk assessment. GOA’s Ben Sanderson called it out as another “attempt at a backdoor registry,” and regardless of anyone’s view on guns, the speech implications are serious. If courts normalize compelled roster turn-overs as the price of organizational standing, other advocacy communities will feel the squeeze too. Today it’s gun rights; tomorrow it could be abortion rights, immigration advocacy, environmental activism, or religious liberty groups.

Where Gun Owners and Civil Libertarians Should Converge

To their credit, GOA, SAF, and FPC are aligned on the core civil-liberties problem, even while litigating different dockets. GOA used its platforms to rally opposition and urged supporters to contact the White House and press DOJ to drop the demand. SAF is weighing an aggressive defense of member privacy. FPC says it will never hand over a list and is moving to appeal. You don’t have to agree with these groups on every policy issue to see the broader principle here: government-compelled disclosure of advocacy memberships is dangerous and corrosive to free association.

Fix the Judgment, Protect the Right – and the People

The most coherent path forward is straightforward: the Fifth Circuit recognized a constitutional right for 18- to 20-year-old adults; the district court should enter a judgment that meaningfully effectuates that win without conscripting private organizations into building a government-held membership registry. Relief can be tied to organizational membership without naming names to the state. Anything less looks like an end-run around both the Second and First Amendments. As SAF put it, the order’s practical effect is “almost laughable” – and yet there’s nothing funny about chilling participation in civil society.

What to Watch Next

Expect quick appellate activity if the disclosure demand stands. Watch whether the Fifth Circuit steps in to correct the scope of relief, and whether the Supreme Court takes up the broader 18–20 question given the split with the Fourth Circuit. In the meantime, GOA’s Ben Sanderson has promised continuing coverage, SAF is publicly reassessing its options, and FPC says it’s already moving to protect its members and the integrity of the Fifth Circuit’s decision. However this shakes out, the stakes reach beyond gun policy: it’s a test of whether courts will vindicate constitutional rights without forcing Americans to surrender their privacy to enjoy them.

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.