Author: HP McLovincraft

Broad swaths of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) are now unconstitutional, a federal judge in Texas has ruled.

On Wednesday, US District Judge James Wesley Hendrix noted portions of the NFA no longer collect tax revenue as a result of cuts in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). He concluded that meant those portions of the federal law could no longer be justified as a lawful exercise of Congress’s taxing authority. Therefore, he ruled, the registration requirements and other regulations on items like silencers and short-barrel rifles that are ostensibly justified as part of the tax collection process are now void.

“Because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from untaxed firearms, its regulatory provisions cannot be upheld under the taxing power,” Judge Hendrix wrote in Silencer Shop v. ATF. “And there is no sign in the NFA’s text, structure, or statutory history that Congress invoked any other power in crafting the NFA provisions at issue. Thus, the regulatory provisions must be enjoined as unconstitutional because they exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.”

While the ruling only applies to named plaintiffs in the case, those plaintiffs include members of most of the nation’s largest gun-rights groups–including Gun Owners of America, the Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, and several others. The ruling, which Judge Hendrix stayed for a week to allow time for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to appeal his decision, could make acquiring the affected NFA items much easier for the average American if it goes into effect. Even if DOJ appeals the decision, which seems likely given its earlier defense of the law, the early win provides some momentum for gun-rights activists–who experts have argued face a tough climb.

On January 1, 2026, silencers, short-barrel rifles and shotguns, as well as firearms in the NFA’s “any other weapon” category, became subject to a paradoxical $0 tax–down from the $200 tax imposed when the NFA was first adopted. Still, anyone looking to buy those items needs to prove they paid the $0 tax by handing over their fingerprints and pictures to register each device with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). That was the key sticking point for the plaintiffs in Silencer Shop v. ATF, who believe Congress cutting the tax also undercut the NFA’s registration justification.

Shortly after President Donald Trump signed the OBBA, which passed Congress along party lines through the reconciliation process, gun-rights activists filed suit against the NFA. While they had successfully lobbied Republicans to cut the tax and even try to eliminate the registration process, they weren’t able to get the registration repeal through the complex legislative process. Still, they argued the tax cut alone was enough to render the remainder of the NFA unconstitutional.

“[T]he NFA no longer imposes any tax on the vast majority of firearms it purports to regulate,” their initial complaint stated. “The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Congress and the President enacted on July 4, 2025, zeroes the manufacture and transfer tax on nearly all NFA-regulated firearms. That means the constitutional foundation on which the NFA rested has dissolved.”

In response, the DOJ argued the relevant portions of the law did still collect some tax revenue from manufacturers and dealers. It also said the NFA was a constitutional exercise of several other Congressional powers.

“The NFA, including as it was recently amended in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (‘OBBB’), falls within Congress’s constitutional authority under Congress’s taxing power, the Commerce Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause,” the DOJ’s brief read. “Plaintiffs’ contrary arguments contravene binding Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit decisions, so they cannot carry the day in this Court.”

Judge Hendrix ultimately sided with the plaintiffs. He concluded the NFA was an exercise of Congress’s taxing power, but didn’t serve that role anymore in the wake of the tax cuts.

“As passed, the NFA required individuals to pay a tax before transferring or making a covered firearm,” Judge Hendrix, a Donald Trump appointee, wrote. “And it included burdensome regulatory provisions to aid the collection and enforcement of those taxes. At that time, the NFA possessed the key feature of any tax: It produced some revenue for the government. But that is no longer true.”

He noted that the plaintiffs also challenged the law on Second Amendment grounds, but that he didn’t feel compelled to decide those claims.

“With the NFA’s taxes now eliminated, each set of plaintiffs alleges that the NFA’s regulatory provisions for untaxed firearms exceed Congress’s Article I enumerated powers,” Judge Hendrix wrote. “They also claim that those same NFA provisions infringe the Second Amendment right to ‘keep and bear Arms.’ The Court agrees on the first point and need not reach the second.”

Additionally, he rejected the DOJ’s attempts to justify its continued enforcement of the NFA registration requirements on the untaxed items in question by pointing to other Congressional powers it believes could cover the law. He argued those powers were not on Congress’s mind when the law was enacted and can’t be fallen back on at this point.

“By zeroing out the transfer and making taxes for most NFA firearms, Congress eliminated the constitutional basis for the regulations that formerly supported the taxes for those firearms. No longer can the challenged NFA provisions be justified—as they have been for nearly 90 years—under Congress’s taxing power,” Judge Hendrix wrote. “And because Congress enacted the challenged NFA provisions under the Taxing Clause only, the NFA cannot be retroactively justified under another power that Congress never invoked, such as its authority to regulate interstate commerce. Thus, the challenged NFA provisions exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.”

The DOJ did not respond to a request for comment on the ruling or questions about whether it planned to appeal. Judge Hendrix’s stay provides the Department with up to a week to decide.

Keep reading