A federal judge in Texas has ruled the 1934 National Firearms Act’s registration requirement, which has remained in force despite repeal of the enabling $200 tax, is unconstitutional, handing a victory to the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
The ruling was issued Wednesday by District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Donald Trump appointee. He serves in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The case, known as Jensen v. ATF, was filed in October 2025 and is supported by the Second Amendment Foundation, which has a separate action known as Brown v. ATF and is also supporting another case known as Roberts v. ATF. In the Jensen case, CCRKBA is joined by the FPC Action Foundation, Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom and three individuals.
Congress acted last year to end the special federal tax on short-barreled rifles and suppressors as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill. The tax had enabled the NFA requirement under Congress’ authority to levy taxes. With the tax gone, there was no viable constitutional authority to continue registering SBRs and suppressors, compelling CCRKBA and its partners to take legal action.
“We are delighted with the ruling from Judge Hendrix,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “With the tax no longer in existence, there was no logical reason for the ATF’s registration requirement to continue. With this victory setting a precedent, we anticipate success in the other cases involving our sister organization, SAF.”
Judge Hendrix’s ruling applies to the plaintiffs in Jensen v. ATF, which includes CCRKBA and its members, and those in another case which was consolidated with Jensen.
“There is no longer any reason for this government gun registry scheme to continue,” Gottlieb observed, “and our victory will ideally lead to other successful court rulings across the country. American citizens should never have their names on a government registry in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”
This is what I have been waiting for, because I’m not giving my name to the government and telling them I have a weapon for the suppressor I want to purchase. I know people will say, well they already know what weapons you have. But why hand them the info directly, it’s just a plain stupid thing to do.
Now will the background checks go away, for a suppressor purchase???
No waiting period???
The Court That Just Struck Down Large Parts of the NFA.
“… Huge ruling today out of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which has found that the NFA’s regulations of the now untaxed items exceed Congress’ authority and is thus unconstitutional. While this ruling will not necessarily offer immediate relief for many, this could be the beginning of the end for this issue as the road ahead for the United States, to restore the NFA will be difficult and might ultimately take them to the United States Supreme Court. So, learn what the Court ruled today so that you can be armed with education.”
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYa084rV6Kw
SBR’s and Suppressors Will NOT Require Registration! [for now, for those plaintiffs in the case]
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdFqwSdbDm0
Another “rights for some” ruling? Crumbs are better than nothing, I suppose…
The Big Takeaways From the FBI’s New Report on Active Shooters
” On Friday, the FBI released its report on active shooter incidents in 2025. …
…”
ht* tps://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/08/04/the-big-takeaways-from-the-fbis-new-report-on-active-shooters-n1233391
Gun Control Doesn’t Stop Mass Shootings, It Helps Mass Killers.
”
…
Good guys with guns stop massacres, often before they can become a ‘mass shooting’ by various definitions.
…”
ht* tps://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2026/08/05/gun-control-doesnt-stop-mass-shootings-it-helps-mass-killers-n1233411
DGU: Indiana Prosecutor – Driver Who Killed Unarmed Road Rage Aggressor Acted in Self-Defense, No Charges Filed
”
Key Takeaways
A man driving a Dodge aggressively followed a Volkswagen, leading to a confrontation in a construction zone.
The driver of the Volkswagen shot Kevin Powell after repeated warnings, citing self-defense under Indiana law.
Witnesses described Powell’s hostility and aggressive behavior before the shooting, indicating he posed an imminent threat.
The prosecutor emphasized that the driver had no duty to retreat when fearing for his life, as established by the law.
The incident highlights the importance of controlling escalating situations to avoid tragic outcomes.
…
HANCOCK COUNTY, IN — A man on his way to work shot and killed a stranger who followed him bumper to bumper across a county line, got out of his vehicle in a construction zone, and kept advancing on him after repeated warnings to stop. The Hancock County Prosecutor’s Office has determined the shooting falls under Indiana’s self-defense law and will not file criminal charges.
The man who died was 37-year-old Kevin Powell of Indianapolis. The shooting happened on the afternoon of July 21, and the account below comes from the findings of the Hancock County Prosecutor’s Office and from Prosecutor Brent Eaton, as reported by Fox59.
Investigators said two vehicles, a Volkswagen Jetta and a Dodge Journey, had been traveling the same route from Marion County into Hancock County. Witnesses said the Dodge began following the Volkswagen at an extremely close distance, less than a foot off the other car’s bumper.
Traffic stopped in a construction zone. Powell got out of the Dodge and, according to the prosecutor’s findings, ‘aggressively approached the Volkswagen.’ One witness said he told the Volkswagen driver, ‘You shouldn’t be driving on my road that fast, motherf*****.’ A witness described his demeanor as “very hostile.”
Powell started back toward his Dodge. Then he turned around and came back. The Volkswagen driver stepped out of his car with a handgun. ‘I wouldn’t do that. Don’t do that. Get back in your car,’ the driver told him, according to the prosecutor. Powell kept coming. The driver fired several shots, striking him more than once. Powell retreated to his vehicle and died of his injuries.
Witnesses later told police Powell had been heard saying, ‘Oh, you gonna get your gun? You afraid? You gonna get your gun? Well, come on, get out.’ That taunt is the part that decides this case. A man who sees the firearm, says out loud that he sees it, and closes the distance anyway has announced what he intends to do.
The prosecutor’s office makes no mention of Powell ever being armed. ‘At every point the driver of the second vehicle was the aggressor and was intent on escalating the situation,’ Eaton said. He said one independent witness told investigators, ‘If I was put in that predicament, if I was the guy in the Volkswagen, I would have been scared for my life,’ and that ‘objective observers, without any connection to either party, said it was their opinion the driver of the Volkswagen would have been in fear for his life from the manner he was approached.’
…”
ht* tps://www.usacarry.com/indiana-prosecutor-driver-who-killed-unarmed-road-rage-aggressor-acted-in-self-defense-no-charges-filed/
This was a perfectly planned and played test case. Bravo!
Judge Hendrix has included a short administrative stay in the injunction, which essentially tells the parties “if the Fifth Circuit or SCOTUS wants to stay the injunction, that’s their call and I’ll give you some breathing room to seek it, but otherwise the injunction will go into effect.” While I suspect it is more likely than not that the Fifth Circuit will stay it pending appeal, however, that’s not a given.
Big question I have is whether DoJ takes up the appeal at all. The Trump admin was all in on stripping this stuff from the NFA already, but were stymied by the Senate Parliamentarian (thanks again, John Thune and Mitch McConnell, for lacking the spine to appoint a GOP parliamentarian and leaving a Dem activist in that position). So like any number of other legal challenges to laws they don’t like, DoJ could just let the injunction go into effect and not push an appeal.
From my reading of Judge Hendrix’s opinion, I also suspect that he’d be amenable to the next obvious challenge to the NFA: that the Hughes Amendment is similarly unconstitutional. Look for that to be filed in his court if this one stands up.
I agree LKB.
I know the DOJ has duty and obligation to defend a law until they can’t any longer, which is probably why they have mounted defenses to various things ‘gun’ then either lost or withdrew. They could just let the injunction go into effect and not try for an appeal though.
“Judge Hendrix’s ruling applies to the plaintiffs in Jensen v. ATF, which includes CCRKBA and its members, and those in another case which was consolidated with Jensen.”
Hey, this information is kinda important. WHICH groups were included in that other case? Or what was the name of that case so we can look it up?
CAVEAT: this is not legal advice. I’m a lawyer, but not *your* lawyer.
CAVEAT 2: until it is official that the administrative stay has expired and has not been extended, the injunction is not in force. DO NOT make or transfer any NFA weapon without strictly complying with the NFA until then.
Here’s a link to the opinion:
https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/15027/attachments/original/1785949942/2026.08.05_136_OPINION.pdf?1785949942
Long and short (for if/when the injunction goes into effect): If you buy from Silencer Shop or PSA, you are covered. If you buy from SilencerCo directly (and I suspect they may start direct sales if this stands up), you’re covered. If you are OR BECOME a member of TSRA, GOA, FPC, CCRTBA, FRAC, or GOF, you are covered (and i suspect some of these may now launch a special “free” membership option so that everyone who wants to can be covered).
So while the standing doctrine limits the official scope of the injunction, as a practical matter most people will easily be able to get under the injunction with minimal effort.
“If you buy from Silencer Shop or PSA, you are covered.”
Question:
IF you buy complete supressors or firearms that would be NFA items, then you are covered.
But if you buy parts from Silencer Shop or PSA and roll your own, then you would need to be a member of TSRA, GOA, FPC, CCRTBA, FRAC, or GOF?
Here’s the operative language from the injunction:
Accordingly, the Court permanently enjoins the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives, the United States Department of Justice, Todd Blanche in his
official capacity, Robert Cekada in his official capacity, their divisions, bureaus, agents,
officers, commissioners, employees, and anyone acting in concert or participation with
them, including their successors in office, from enforcing the challenged provisions of the
National Firearms Act as to untaxed firearms against the plaintiffs and, where applicable,
the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers—both current and
future.
(Complete document: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/15027/attachments/original/1785949942/2026.08.05_137_JUDGMENT.pdf?1785949942 )
So would a customer who buys a 10” AR barrel from PSA and then creates an SBR be covered? Maybe, but I’d say if you’re doing anything but buying a complete NFA weapon from them, I’d become a member of one of the plaintiff orgs just to be safe.
Sling Techniques Part 1: Switching Shoulders with Travis Haley.
Travis Haley discusses effective Sling manipulation and techniques to use when coming up on a corner in a CQB scenario. Watch as Travis demonstrates 3 techniques using the D3 Pro Sling.
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCSXETZg7S8
So next time the Dems take control they just reinstate the tax.
We need a permanent solution. Not a stupid partisan football or political cudgel.
Finally. Hopefully 92 years of meaningless stupidity coming to an end.