A federal judge in Texas has ruled significant parts of the National Firearms Act unconstitutional.
A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that the registration and approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns in the National Firearms Act (NFA) are unconstitutional.
In the case of Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), U.S. District Court Judge James Wesley Hendrix found that the requirements exceeded Congress’s constitutional authority once the NFA’s taxes on making or transferring those arms were eliminated. The taxes were reduced to zero last year.
The court found that the NFA, as enacted in 1934, passed constitutional muster as an act of Congress’s taxing power because the regulatory requirements—including registration, applications, ATF approval, fingerprinting, and related criminal penalties—aided the collection of NFA taxes.
This is in line with the 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case, Sonzinsky v. United States, in which the high court ruled the NFA is a legal exercise of Congress’s taxing authority. In that decision, the court found that the government could gather information on the owners of certain firearms and their accessories that were subject to the NFA’s $200 excise as part of the tax collection process.
Wednesday’s ruling in response to two consolidated cases—Jensen v. ATF, with Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF—in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, held that once Congress eliminated the taxes for suppressors, the constitutional foundation for registration was eliminated as well.
“In sum, the Court concludes that the challenged NFA provisions exceed Congress’s Article I enumerated powers and are therefore unconstitutional,” Hendrix’s ruling states.
On July 4, 2025, President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” reduced the NFA’s excise tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and a category labeled “any other weapon” from $200 to $0. However, the items were still required to be registered under the NFA.
Machine guns and destructive devices are still subject to the $200 tax and its requirements. Under Hendrix’s ruling, the category “any other weapons” is still subject to the requirements even though it is not taxed.
The court has issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, but leaves them in place for the “any other weapons” category.
Hendrix stayed his decision for seven days to allow the government to appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The ruling itself is pretty interesting, as Judge Hendrix made clear he was ruling only on the constitutional issues that provide the injunctive relief sought by the plaintiffs.
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. 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. 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. See Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 (1937). 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. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Thus, the challenged NFA provisions exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.
That last part is fairly huge: Because Congress didn’t cite the Commerce Claus in setting up the NFA, it can’t defend it on that basis now that taxing provisions have been stripped away. Why, it’s almost as if congress can only pass laws based on enumerated constitutional powers.
Hendrix continues:
With that understanding, the Court accepts the plaintiffs’ invitation—offered at the motions hearing—to forgo adjudication of their Second Amendment claims. The Court does not decide constitutional questions unnecessarily, especially when the plaintiffs will receive no less relief than they would get for prevailing under the Second Amendment.
By not ruling on the Second Amendment claims, Hendrix does not foreclose additional challenges to the NFA on Second Amendment grounds.
Hendrix concludes his opening summary:
But to be clear: The challenged NFA provisions are unconstitutional. Congress’s choice to eliminate the transfer and making taxes matters, and the defendants cannot save the NFA’s regulatory scheme by referring to a power that Congress never invoked. Efforts to render the NFA constitutional must come from Congress, not this Court.
The downside for gun owners: Because congress did not eliminate the tax on machine guns and destructive devices, the lawsuit did not ask for relief on NFA regulations surrounding those still-taxed items. But I wonder if narrowing the justification of the NFA solely to taxation might not provide avenues for challenging those provisions of the act with no direct connection to that taxing purpose.
Here’s additional analysis from William Kirk of Washington Gun Law:
He covers most of the points above, but also goes into Hendrix’s discussion of “facial vs. as-applied” challenges to constitutionality. Not being a lawyer, this stuff is pretty murky to me (even murkier than “standing” or “ripeness”), so take a look at his discussion of that if you’re interested.
This ruling was a win for gun owners, though it is almost certain to be appealed, unless President Trump intervenes and orders the ATF not to appeal.
I also wonder if Hendrix’s ruling might provide the basis for a lawsuit to overturn the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986. That’s the act that bars the transfer of any machine guns not already registered with the ATF to civilians. If the NFA is purely a taxing act, then it could be argued that barring new guns from being sold does not further the purpose of generating revenue for the U.S. Treasury.