A federal judge in Texas has invalidated core parts of the nearly 100-year-old National Firearms Act (NFA) for the parties in a lawsuit, immediately easing federal restrictions on the sale and transfer of some suppressors and certain short-barreled firearms for those plaintiffs.
What happened
Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that several NFA requirements are no longer constitutional for the plaintiffs in the case. He concluded that after Congress reduced the longstanding $200 transfer/manufacturing tax to $0 for short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles and suppressors, the tax power could no longer serve as the constitutional basis for the NFA’s regulatory framework. The decision covers plaintiffs in more than a dozen states who sued the government, including groups like the Silencer Shop Foundation and Gun Owners of America.
The Justice Department had one week to seek an emergency stay before Hendrix’s order took effect; it did not file one. The DOJ still has additional time to file a non-emergency appeal, but court observers say an appeal is not guaranteed. The department has said it is assessing the ruling’s impact and respects Americans’ Second Amendment rights.
What changes immediately
For the plaintiffs in the Texas case, some items that previously required registration and submission of photographs or fingerprints under the NFA — notably certain suppressors, specific short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and a category known as “any other weapon” (AOW), which covers unusual concealable devices such as pen guns — may now be bought and sold without following those particular federal NFA procedures. Gun rights advocates have hailed the decision as a major victory; critics of the ruling warn it could make communities less safe by removing longstanding safeguards.
Limits and confusion
The ruling is not nationwide. It applies only to the plaintiffs in the Texas lawsuit, creating a patchwork where NFA requirements may still be enforced elsewhere and for other people. States may have their own laws and requirements that remain in effect. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) said it will continue to process forms consistent with applicable law, regulations and agency policy and advised individuals with questions to consult attorneys.
Background
The NFA was enacted in 1934 after Prohibition-era violent crime to regulate particularly dangerous weapons; it historically included a $200 transfer tax and registration requirements. In 2025, Congress cut that NFA transfer/manufacturing tax to $0 for certain items as part of broader legislation. Plaintiffs argued that removing the tax stripped away Congress’s constitutional taxing power basis for the NFA’s other requirements, and Judge Hendrix agreed for the challenged provisions.
What’s next
Other federal cases challenging aspects of the NFA are pending in Missouri and Kentucky, where the Justice Department continues to defend the law. If the DOJ files an appeal in the Texas case, higher courts could reinstate the NFA provisions while litigation proceeds. Lawmakers could also act to change federal statutes or clarify congressional authority.
Practical advice
Because the decision currently applies only to named plaintiffs and because state laws and other federal provisions (like the Gun Control Act) may still impose requirements, legal experts and government agencies urge caution. Anyone uncertain about how the ruling affects their situation should consult a lawyer before buying, selling or altering regulated firearms or accessories.
The ruling marks a significant legal shift for gun rights advocates and introduces short-term legal uncertainty. Whether the ruling becomes broader or is reversed will depend on further litigation, potential appeals and possible legislative action.