A federal judge in the Northern District of Texas ruled on August 5 that key National Firearms Act registration and approval provisions are unconstitutional as applied to firearms whose making and transfer taxes Congress reduced to zero. The 66-page opinion covers suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, but the resulting injunction is not nationwide. It protects the named plaintiffs and, where applicable, their current and future members, customers, agencies, and political subdivisions. The court stayed its judgment for seven days so the federal government could seek appellate relief.
The court tied the rules to a tax Congress removed
Congress enacted the NFA in 1934 under its power to lay and collect taxes. For most of the law's history, making or transferring a covered firearm generally carried a $200 tax. The statute also imposed registration, applications, ATF approval, fingerprints, photographs, identifying information, firearm descriptions, and criminal penalties. U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix concluded that those regulatory provisions were designed to support collection and enforcement of the taxes, rather than as a separate exercise of federal power over firearms.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed on July 4, 2025, set the making and transfer taxes at zero for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and weapons classified as “any other weapon,” effective January 1, 2026. Congress left the $200 taxes in place for machineguns and destructive devices. It also retained the annual special occupational tax paid by NFA importers, manufacturers, and dealers. The ruling therefore does not erase the entire NFA or address every firearm category regulated by it.
The government argued that the remaining requirements could be sustained under Congress's Commerce Clause authority or the Necessary and Proper Clause. The court rejected that route because it found no indication in the NFA's text, structure, or history that Congress enacted the challenged provisions under those powers. The opinion says a court cannot save the scheme after the fact by assigning Congress a constitutional basis it did not invoke. The judge granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their Article I enumerated-powers claims.
Relief is broad within the plaintiff groups, not universal
The final judgment permanently enjoins ATF, the Justice Department, and named officials from enforcing specified registration, application, approval, and criminal provisions for untaxed firearms against the plaintiffs. Depending on the plaintiff, that protection also reaches members and customers, including future members and customers. It covers organizations involved in the consolidated cases, including Texas State Rifle Association, FPC Action Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Gun Owners of America, Silencer Shop Foundation, several firearm companies, individual owners, and 15 plaintiff states.
The judge expressly refused to issue a universal injunction for people or businesses outside those relationships. That distinction matters for an owner considering a purchase or manufacture now. The opinion does not say every person in the United States may ignore current NFA procedures, and the seven-day stay temporarily delays even the relief awarded to the plaintiffs. The government may also ask the Fifth Circuit to pause the judgment for longer while an appeal proceeds. Owners should not treat the decision as immediate nationwide clearance to bypass ATF forms or registration.
The judgment lists the provisions covered by the injunction, including 26 U.S.C. Sections 5812, 5822, parts of 5841, and parts of 5861, along with corresponding regulations governing Form 1 and Form 4 procedures. The Jensen plaintiffs received additional protection from two marking and possession provisions they separately challenged. Their relief does not extend to the NFA's “any other weapon” category because the court found they lacked standing to challenge that portion. Other plaintiffs obtained relief according to the scope stated in the judgment.
The Second Amendment question remains open
The plaintiffs also brought Second Amendment claims, but the court did not decide them. After prevailing on the enumerated-powers theory, they agreed the judge could avoid the additional constitutional question without reducing their remedy. The final judgment dismisses those Second Amendment claims without prejudice as abandoned. It also denies declaratory judgments because the court considered them redundant once it issued the injunction.
The immediate next step is procedural rather than legislative. The judgment's seven-day stay gives the Justice Department and ATF time to seek relief from the Fifth Circuit. Whether the injunction takes effect as written, is extended, narrowed, or paused during an appeal will determine the near-term effect for the plaintiff organizations and their members or customers. Congress could also amend the statute, but the opinion says any effort to provide a new constitutional basis for the regulations must come from Congress rather than the court.
About the Author
Nick Sawinyh - Nick Sawinyh is a father, husband, hobby farmer, and gun enthusiast from Kentucky. He founded GunsNation and writes most of what appears on this blog.
