Silencer Shop Foundation/Jensen v ATF - NFA Regulation of Short-Barreled Rifles and Suppressors

[Yeti]

A judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas has ruled that the remaining registration scheme for short-barreled rifles and suppressors in the National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional in Jensen v. ATF, a case supported by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF).

 

Since 1934, the NFA required anyone who wished to purchase certain classes of firearms, including silencers and short-barreled rifles, to pay a $200 tax and register the firearm with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), purportedly drawing from Congressional authority to levy taxes. Through the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, however, the tax on these arms was eliminated but the registration requirement was left in place. SAF and its partners have filed three lawsuits challenging the remaining registration requirements, because without the tax, Congress’ reliance on their taxing power is no longer justifiable.

 

JUDGE: SHORT-BARRELED RIFLE, SUPPRESSOR NFA REGISTRATION SCHEME UNCONSTITUTIONAL - Second Amendment Foundation

Edited August 6, 2026 at 04:13 AM by Yeti
Added SSF to title

[Yeti]

I may be incorrect, but it appears as if this case was rolled up with Silencer Shop Foundation v ATF and other complaints as well:

 

Silencer-Shop-Foundation-v.-ATF-Opinion-and-Order.pdf

 

Edit: the NRA-ILA says that the Silencer Shop Foundation and Jensen cases were consolidated:

 

NRA-ILA | Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration Requirements for Suppressors, Short-Barreled Rifles, and Short-Barreled Shotguns in NRA Case

Edited August 6, 2026 at 01:53 AM by Yeti
Additional link

[Yeti]

 

[Yeti]

From the Opinion:

 

"Remedy-wise, the plaintiffs in both cases are entitled to a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the challenged NFA provisions against them, their members, and their customers. But that is as far as it goes. Federal courts lack power to issue universal injunctions that provide relief to parties not before the Court. See Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025). The Court’s remedy is limited in other respects, too. The Jensen plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the NFA’s regulation of “any other weapon”—the final, defined group of miscellaneous firearms—because they did not establish as much from the start of the case. The Court also declines to issue the requested declaratory judgments because they would provide no further relief. But to be clear: The challenged NFA provisions are unconstitutional.1 Congress’s choice to eliminate the transfer and making taxes matters, and the defendants cannot save the NFA’s regulatory scheme by referring to a power that Congress never invoked. Efforts to render the NFA constitutional must come from Congress, not this Court."

[Euler]

On June 8, 2026, Jensen v ATF (6:26-cv-227, ND Texas) was indeed consolidated into Silencer Shop v ATF (6:25-cv-56, ND Texas), with Silencer Shop v ATF as the lead case. (docket)

It might be worth changing the topic title, although the caption can change at the appellate level, too. ATF may not appeal, but Baltimore (MD), Columbus (OH), and Harris County (Houston, TX) intervened as defendants, so maybe they will if ATF doesn't.

[Molly B.]

Video has a lot of good info. Thanks for posting.