On Aug. 8, 2026, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled in Silencer Shop v. ATF that most of the National Firearms Act is unconstitutional, stating that portions of the NFA that no longer collect tax revenue as a result of cuts in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill can no longer be justified as a lawful exercise of Congress’s taxing authority. The court concluded that the registration requirements and other regulations on items like silencers, short-barrel rifles and short-barrel shotguns that are ostensibly justified as part of the tax collection process are unconstitutional.
The court entered a permanent injunction providing relief to only the plaintiffs in the legal challenge, and the U.S. Department of Justice declined to seek an emergency appeal or stay of that decision, which means that the injunction is now in effect. However, DOJ still has until Oct. 5, 2026, to appeal or seek a stay of the final judgment, and there are many unanswered questions about the implications of the injunction.
NSSF has requested the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives issue guidance to the industry so that federal firearms licensees can remain in compliance with the law. In the meantime, NSSF is providing its understanding of the state of play. This is not legal advice. FFLs should consult with their attorney.
Who Does the Injunction Apply To?
The scope of the injunction is limited, and only extends to the named plaintiffs, their current and future members, and in the case of commercial plaintiffs or commercial members of plaintiff organizations, their current and future customers.
The plaintiffs in the Silencer Shop case include B&T USA, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo Weapons Research, Silencer Shop Foundation, the States of Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
The plaintiffs in the Jensen v. ATF case include Texas State Rifle Association (the NRA’s Texas affiliate), Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation and Hot Shots Custom.
If you are not a named plaintiff, the injunction will only cover your activities if you are a member of Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Texas State Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms or FPC Action Foundation. If you are a member of these organizations, the injunction will be effective only as to transactions between you and your customers — it does not provide your customers any coverage outside of purchases from your business made under the injunction.
Additionally, if you are a member of Texas State Rifle Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, or the FPC Action Foundation, the injunction does not apply in the context of “Any Other Weapons” under the NFA.
While several states are plaintiffs, the court’s injunction only extends to their agencies and political subdivisions. It does not cover the citizens of those states at large.
Enjoined Provisions
The NFA’s registration and making/transfer approval requirements are enjoined as to silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns for all of the plaintiffs. See 26 U.S.C. § 5812(a)–(b); 26 U.S.C. § 5822; 26 U.S.C. § 5841(a)–(c), (e); 26 U.S.C. § 5861(b)–(f); 27 C.F.R. § 479.62(a)–(d); and 27 C.F.R. § 479.84(a)–(d)).
The injunction also extends to the NFA’s regulation of AOWs for only the Silencer Shop plaintiffs. See 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(5), (e).
Federal Provisions Not Enjoined
However, the practical effect of the injunction is likely more limited in scope due to several federal laws the court did not enjoin.
Most notably, the injunction seems to only clearly cover silencer transfers by covered entities and AOWs for members of Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation and Gun Owners of America. 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4) makes it unlawful for a “licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver . . . to any person any . . . short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity.” NFA compliance acted as the “authorization” under this provision, and it is currently unclear whether ATF will provide a new mechanism for getting authorization. Until then, the NFA procedures are the only available avenue for complying with this requirement for transferring short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles.
The NFA also makes it unlawful for any person to “to transport, deliver, or receive any firearm in interstate commerce which has not been registered as required” by the NFA or to “to receive or possess a firearm which has been imported or brought into the United States” in violation of the NFA. 26 U.S.C. § 5861(j), (k). The district court did not enjoin these provisions. This would seem to indicate that NFA items must still be registered before they can be transferred between licensees across state lines, and it is unclear whether ATF will interpret these provisions as prohibiting the interstate transportation (including moving residences, transporting for hunting trips, shipping for repair, etc.) or re-importation of any unregistered silencer, even if it was purchased legally under the injunction. Currently, ATF has no authority to grant exceptions to these requirements. It is also unclear whether ATF will provide a mechanism for registering a silencer if the owner later wishes to transport it in interstate commerce or reimport it.
The district court also did not enjoin the Special Occupational Tax regime applicable to FFLs engaged in the business of manufacturing, importing, or dealing in NFA firearms, as Congress did not eliminate these taxes in the One Big Beautiful Bill. It is unclear how the ATF will handle the transfer of NFA items from distributors or manufacturers to non-SOT dealers. Likewise, it is uncertain whether the ATF will provide an alternative mechanism for FFLs to remove an NFA item from its National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record without a Form 4.
Finally, the district court did not enjoin any requirements of the Gun Control Act. Silencers and AOWs sold under the injunction are still subject to the background check requirement and require the FFL to fill out a Form 4473, for example. All other marking and recordkeeping requirements of the GCA remain in effect in relation to these items as well.
State Law Reminder
Many states also regulate the transfer or possession of NFA items. In many instances, compliance with state law is linked with registration or compliance with the NFA. The status of an unregistered item will depend on the wording of the individual law. For example, if the state law explicitly requires NFA registration for silencer possession, failure to go through the NFA process significantly risks violating that state law even if legally acquired under federal law pursuant to the injunction. Other states simply require lawful possession under federal law, and it is unclear whether coverage under the injunction satisfies that standard. NSSF encourages members to contact their state attorney general as to matters of state law.
This is for informational purposes only and should not be considered legal advice. You are strongly encouraged to consult with your attorney. And you should contact your local ATF office to request guidance.
America is becoming great again!!!😃