A Texas federal judge ruled that Congress destroyed the constitutional foundation for major National Firearms Act restrictions when it reduced the underlying taxes to zero.
A federal court in Texas dealt a major blow to the National Firearms Act on August 5, ruling that several NFA registration, application, approval, and enforcement provisions are unconstitutional as applied to firearms Congress no longer taxes.
U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered judgment for the plaintiffs in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and the consolidated Jensen v. ATF case.
The ruling applies to silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and firearms classified as “any other weapons,” or AOWs.
But the court stayed its judgment for seven days, giving the federal government time to seek relief from an appellate court.
Congress Eliminated the Tax but Kept the Burdens
Congress enacted the National Firearms Act in 1934 under its constitutional authority to impose and collect taxes.
For decades, the federal government required Americans to pay a tax before making or transferring an NFA-regulated firearm. Congress then used that tax as the basis for an extensive regulatory system involving applications, registration, fingerprints, photographs, government approval, recordkeeping, and severe criminal penalties.
That changed when Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025.
Effective January 1, 2026, the law reduced the NFA making and transfer taxes to $0 for silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs.
Congress left the surrounding regulatory system in place.
Judge Hendrix ruled that Congress could not continue using its taxing power to support regulations connected to a tax that no longer raises any revenue.
“The challenged NFA provisions are unconstitutional,” the court stated.
According to the opinion, the NFA’s registration and approval requirements were designed to support the collection of the making and transfer taxes. Once Congress eliminated those taxes, it also eliminated the constitutional foundation for the regulations tied to them.
ATF’s Backup Arguments Failed
The Department of Justice argued that the challenged requirements still helped enforce a separate occupational tax paid by certain firearm manufacturers, importers, and dealers.
The court rejected that argument.
The occupational tax has its own statutory registration and enforcement system. The challenged provisions governing the making, transfer, registration, and possession of individual firearms were tied to the now-zeroed making and transfer taxes.
The court also rejected the government’s reliance on the Necessary and Proper Clause, warning that the government’s theory would allow Congress to impose sweeping federal regulations on ordinary Americans merely by connecting them to some distant tax.
DOJ separately argued that the restrictions could be upheld under Congress’s authority to regulate interstate commerce.
That argument failed as well.
The court emphasized that the NFA was enacted as a taxing statute, remains located in the Internal Revenue Code, and does not contain the interstate-commerce language Congress regularly uses when legislating under the Commerce Clause.
The court contrasted the NFA with the Gun Control Act, which expressly regulates firearms moving in or affecting interstate commerce.
Congress may pass new legislation under a valid constitutional power, but the executive branch cannot retroactively rewrite the legal foundation of an existing statute after its original justification disappears.
As the court explained, any attempt to rebuild the NFA’s regulatory scheme must come from Congress — not ATF, DOJ, or the judiciary.
The Court Did Not Reach the Second Amendment
The plaintiffs also argued that the challenged NFA provisions violated the Second Amendment.
The court did not decide that issue.
Because the plaintiffs prevailed on their enumerated-powers claim and received injunctive relief, the court concluded that it was unnecessary to address the separate Second Amendment challenge.
Those claims were dismissed without prejudice as abandoned.
That means the ruling does not decide whether silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, or AOWs are independently protected from NFA regulation under the Second Amendment.
The Injunction Is Not Nationwide
Gun owners must understand the limits of the judgment.
The court did not issue a universal injunction protecting every American. It applies to the named plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members, and current and future customers.
Members of the plaintiff associations may receive protection once the injunction takes effect. But Texas residency — or membership in Texas Gun Rights — does not independently place someone within the protected group.
Customer protection is also narrow. It covers transactions involving a protected commercial plaintiff or a qualifying commercial member of one of the plaintiff associations. Purchasing an item from one of those businesses does not provide blanket protection for unrelated NFA firearms or transactions.
The court also declined to extend relief to an association’s general supporters or to family members merely because they live with someone covered by the injunction.
Most importantly, the judgment is stayed for seven days from August 5. During that period, gun owners should continue treating existing NFA application, registration, approval, and transfer requirements as enforceable.
The federal government may ask the Fifth Circuit to keep the injunction on hold during an appeal. Texas Gun Rights will continue monitoring the case and report any change in its legal effect.
A Serious Blow to the NFA
This ruling exposes the weakness at the heart of the federal government’s position.
Congress cannot use a tax as the constitutional excuse for regulation after eliminating the tax itself.
When the revenue disappears, the claimed taxing authority disappears with it.
ATF cannot keep enforcing a registration and approval system simply because federal bureaucrats want that system to survive.
The government is likely to appeal, and the seven-day stay means the legal fight is far from over.
But the court’s message is clear: Federal agencies do not possess unlimited power, and they cannot manufacture constitutional authority after Congress removes the foundation beneath their regulations.
Texas Gun Rights will continue fighting for the complete repeal of the NFA’s restrictions on silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and other commonly possessed arms.
Chip in today to help Texas Gun Rights keep fighting for your gun rights.
