A federal judge in Texas on Wednesday struck down a 1930s law regulating firearm suppressors and certain firearms, ruling that the registration and background check requirements under the National Firearms Act (NFA) can no longer be enforced. The decision follows the elimination of a $200 federal tax on these items in 2025, which had historically justified the regulatory framework.
U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled that the NFA’s registration and approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns are unconstitutional because they exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority once the associated taxes were reduced to zero. The ruling applies to individual plaintiffs and members of plaintiff groups in two consolidated cases: Jensen v. ATF and Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF.
The case stems from the 2025 "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which removed the $200 excise tax on suppressors and certain firearms while leaving the NFA’s registration requirements intact. Plaintiffs, including the Texas State Rifle Association and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), argued that the registration scheme lacked legal justification without the tax. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which enforces the NFA, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Judge Hendrix’s ruling hinged on constitutional authority
Hendrix’s decision cited the 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case Sonzinsky v. United States, which upheld the NFA as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power. The court found that the registration and approval requirements—including fingerprinting, background checks, and criminal penalties—were originally tied to the collection of the $200 tax. With the tax now eliminated, Hendrix concluded that the regulatory framework "exceeds Congress’s Article I enumerated powers and are therefore unconstitutional."
The ruling could allow firearm owners to purchase suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns without registration or background checks, though the ATF has not yet indicated whether it will appeal. Gun rights advocates hailed the decision as a victory for Second Amendment rights, while gun control groups criticized it as a removal of important safety measures.
Background: The National Firearms Act and its evolution
Enacted in 1934, the NFA was designed to regulate firearms considered particularly dangerous, including suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and shotguns. The law imposed a $200 tax on the manufacture or transfer of these items, with registration and background checks used to ensure compliance. The tax was historically justified as a means to fund the regulatory system and deter illegal possession.
In July 2025, the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" reduced the NFA’s excise tax on suppressors and certain firearms from $200 to $0. Despite the tax repeal, the registration requirements remained in place, leading to the legal challenge. The plaintiffs argued that the registration scheme, now disconnected from any tax, served no constitutional purpose and infringed on Second Amendment rights.
Reactions and implications
Gun rights groups, including the CCRKBA and the Texas State Rifle Association, praised the ruling as a step toward expanding Second Amendment freedoms. Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the CCRKBA, stated that the decision "sets a precedent" for future challenges to the NFA’s remaining provisions. The groups anticipate using the ruling to argue similar cases nationwide.
Opponents of the decision, including gun control advocates, argue that the registration requirements were critical for public safety and crime prevention. They contend that the ruling removes a layer of oversight that helps law enforcement track potentially dangerous firearms. The ATF’s enforcement mechanisms under the NFA have historically included tracking registered suppressors and other regulated items to combat illegal use.
Legal and policy uncertainty ahead
The ruling does not immediately invalidate the entire NFA but specifically targets the registration requirements for the items affected by the tax repeal. Legal experts note that the decision could face appeal, potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court. The outcome may hinge on whether the Supreme Court revisits its 1937 Sonzinsky precedent or reinterprets Congress’s taxing authority in the context of modern firearms regulations.
For now, the decision applies to the plaintiffs in the consolidated cases, but its broader implications depend on further legal proceedings and potential legislative action. The ATF has not indicated whether it will seek a stay or appeal, leaving the immediate enforcement status of the NFA’s registration requirements unresolved.