TEXAS — Judge Hendrix determined that the National Firearms Act's regulatory scheme is unconstitutional because Congress eliminated the $200 transfer and making taxes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In 2025, Congress included a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminating the $200 tax on the transfer or making of regulated firearms.

"Last night was an amazing experience to be a part of history in the making," State Representative Wes Virdell posted on social media. U.S. Representative Chip Roy also characterized the outcome as a win for gun rights. "The Trump administration has delivered a decisive victory for the Second Amendment," Roy wrote on social media.

Adam Skaggs, vice president and chief counsel at GIFFORDS Law Center, criticized the legal outcome. "Today’s ruling is a dangerous step backward for public safety. For nearly 100 years, Congress has required background checks before someone could buy a silencer, short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun," Skaggs said. Emma Brown, executive director of Giffords, stated, "The Department of Justice's decision is a failure to defend public safety."

A Justice Department spokesperson addressed the department's position on the case. "The Department respects Americans' Second Amendment rights and is currently assessing the impact of the court's ruling," the spokesperson said. Attorney General Todd Blanche previously indicated his approach to the statute during his confirmation process.

"I defer to the measured judgment of Congress on whether the NFA should be repealed or weakened. The Department's duty is to defend the constitutionality of the laws passed by this body," Blanche wrote in responses to senators.

Republican lawmakers, including Representative Andrew Clyde, urged Attorney General Todd Blanche not to appeal the ruling. "An appeal would prolong regulatory uncertainty for law-abiding gun owners and businesses and would consume DOJ resources defending a position that this Congress and now a federal district court has said cannot stand," Clyde said. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives stated it would continue to process National Firearms Act forms but cannot provide legal advice or interpret court rulings for individuals.

Why It Matters

The National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934 and imposes taxes and registration requirements on certain specialized firearms. Section 5822 of the National Firearms Act prohibits any person from making a firearm unless the person has filed with the Attorney General a written application, in duplicate, to make and register the firearm, and paid any required tax. The National Firearms Act is codified and amended as I.R.C. ch. 53 and is referred to as Title II of the federal firearms laws, with the Gun Control Act of 1968 as Title I.

Table 2 in ATF regulations lists historical National Firearms Act applications, showing 303,859 applications and an estimated $60,771,800 in NFA taxes assessed in 2016, and 119,850 applications with $23,970,000 in taxes assessed in 2017. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed a rule to remove the requirement that copies of National Firearms Act applications be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer of the locality where the applicant is located. Legislative efforts to repeal the act have occurred, such as when Rep. Cawthorn, Madison [R-NC-11] sponsored a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the National Firearms Act, which was referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.

Timeline

On June 26, 1934, the National Firearms Act was enacted, imposing taxes and registration requirements on certain specialized firearms. Gun Owners of America noted that this date marks the first time since the NFA was enacted on June 26, 1934, that Americans can lawfully acquire suppressors without complying with the federal registration scheme. In 2025, Congress included a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminating the $200 tax on the transfer or making of regulated firearms.

U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas issued a ruling on August 5 declaring the National Firearms Act's regulatory scheme for silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns unconstitutional. On that same date, Judge Hendrix determined that the National Firearms Act's regulatory scheme is unconstitutional because Congress eliminated the $200 transfer and making taxes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

What's New

Legislative records show that a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the National Firearms Act was sponsored by Rep. Cawthorn, Madison [R-NC-11], with the latest action being referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means. Historical data from Table 2 in ATF regulations lists 303,859 applications and an estimated $60,771,800 in NFA taxes assessed in 2016, and 119,850 applications with $23,970,000 in taxes assessed in 2017. Representative Andrew Clyde argued that an appeal would prolong regulatory uncertainty for law-abiding gun owners and businesses and would consume DOJ resources defending a position that this Congress and now a federal district court has said cannot stand. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed a rule to remove the requirement that copies of National Firearms Act applications be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer of the locality where the applicant is located.

How Sources Differ

There is a distinction in how sources describe the judicial action regarding District Judge Wesley Hendrix's ruling. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas opinion, Aug. 5, 2025, notes that U.S. District Judge Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas issued a ruling on August 5 declaring the National Firearms Act's regulatory scheme for silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns unconstitutional. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas docket indicates that the Justice Department declined to request a stay of U.S. District Judge Wesley Hendrix's ruling deregulating silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barrelled shotguns before the deadline expired.

Reports differ on the involvement of Gun Owners of America and Silencer Shop. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas case filing notes that the lawsuit consolidates two cases brought by groups including Gun Owners of America, Silencer Shop Foundation, B&T USA, the Texas State Rifle Association, and 15 Republican-controlled states. A Gun Owners of America statement announces that Gun Owners of America and Silencer Shop announced that two members lawfully acquired suppressors without complying with National Firearms Act registration requirements after the ruling took effect.