A federal judge in Texas just handed gun-rights advocates one of their biggest courtroom wins in years. And it could have major implications for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and the future of the National Firearms Act.
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled that the federal government can no longer require the registration of suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and certain other firearms whose $200 transfer tax was eliminated under the One Big Beautiful Bill.
The ruling came in Jensen v. ATF, one of several lawsuits backed by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) challenging what’s left of the National Firearms Act after Congress zeroed out the tax earlier this year.
This is a huge win,” Washington Gun Law President William Kirk said in a video (see below) breaking down the decision. But, he cautioned, “it is not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.”
That’s an important distinction.
Why the Judge Ruled Against the NFA
For decades, the National Firearms Act rested on Congress’ constitutional authority to levy taxes.
If you wanted to buy a suppressor or an SBR, you paid a $200 tax and registered the firearm with the ATF.
Then Congress changed the equation.
The One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the transfer and making tax for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and certain other NFA-regulated firearms. But left the registration requirement in place.
According to Judge O’Connor, that’s where the problem begins.
SEE ALSO: Ruger 10/22 Review: The Rimfire That Won’t Die
In plain English, the court concluded that if the tax no longer exists, Congress can’t continue enforcing regulations that were justified solely by that taxing power. Without revenue, the constitutional foundation disappears.
“The basis for each lawsuit challenging the NFA registration scheme is the same – without the tax, the remaining requirements for the affected arms under the NFA have no constitutional basis,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “And today the first court to rule on the issue has agreed with us.”
This Isn’t a Second Amendment Ruling
That’s the part many headlines are likely to miss. The judge never ruled that the NFA violates the Second Amendment.
Instead, he found that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by continuing to require registration after eliminating the tax that justified the law in the first place.
As Kirk explained, the court intentionally stopped there because striking down the registration scheme on constitutional grounds made it unnecessary to analyze the Second Amendment claims.
In other words, the plaintiffs got the relief they were seeking without the court having to reach a Bruen-style analysis.
The Government’s Backup Argument Didn’t Work
The Justice Department argued that even without the tax, the registration system could survive under Congress’ authority to regulate interstate commerce.
Judge O’Connor wasn’t persuaded.
The opinion points out that Congress wrote the NFA as a tax law (not a commerce law) and the government can’t simply switch constitutional justifications decades later because the original one no longer works.
The court also noted that violating the NFA isn’t just missing paperwork. Failure to comply can carry felony penalties, prison time, fines, firearm forfeiture, and even the permanent loss of gun rights. It makes the government’s argument that the registration system is merely administrative a tough sell.
SAF Sees Momentum Building
SAF believes the decision could have ripple effects far beyond this single case.
The removal of the $200 tax in the One Big Beautiful Bill offers the best opportunity to remove the NFA registration requirements that we’ve had in almost a century,” said SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “We are thrilled the court ruled in our favor and look forward to other jurisdictions following suit in our remaining NFA cases. This ruling will set a precedent we can now argue in courts across the country to allow Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights without fear of being placed on some government registry.
SAF is also backing similar lawsuits, including Brown v. ATF and Roberts v. ATF. They challenge the same post-tax registration requirements.
Don’t Expect Overnight Changes
Before anyone rushes out expecting to buy a suppressor with nothing more than a Form 4473, pump the brakes.
This ruling came from a federal district court, and an appeal is widely expected. Kirk said he would be “absolutely positively” shocked if the Justice Department didn’t take the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
For now, existing federal law and ATF procedures remain in place while the legal process plays out.
Still, the ruling marks the first time a federal court has agreed with the argument that once Congress eliminated the NFA tax, it also eliminated the constitutional basis for requiring registration of those firearms.
Whether higher courts agree could determine the future of a major portion of the National Firearms Act.
*** Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! ***
Read the full article here
