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. 

[Tvandermyde]

As of tonight it is being reported DoJ will not seek a stay and will not appeal the decision. Now it's on to the NRA case in Missouri. 

This is gonna make things real interesting across the country and here in Illinois 

 

 

[Euler]

In Illinois:

720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6)	bans silencers
720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(7)(ii)	bans short-barreled shotguns
720 ILCS 5/24-1(c)(7)	requires C&R license for short-barreled rifles

The cases are good, but they won't help us directly.

Edited August 13, 2026 at 05:57 AM by Euler

[EdDinIL]

On 8/13/2026 at 12:56 AM, Euler said:

In Illinois:

720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6)	bans silencers
720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(7)(ii)	bans short-barreled shotguns
720 ILCS 5/24-1(c)(7)	requires C&R license for short-barreled rifles

The cases are good, but they won't help us directly.
 

Any predictions on the long-term for Illinois?  I assume we're going to be last in the nation like with concealed carry.  

[Jeffrey]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/300917162878551/posts/1083891721247754/

[Yeti]

On 8/13/2026 at 2:33 PM, Jeffrey said:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/300917162878551/posts/1083891721247754/

Now if Form 4s are federal and if the ATF would stop supporting Form 4s for suppressors and SBRs, what will all the semi-controlling states that still require Form 4s as part if state law do?  I ask this as I  contemplate a future move to one of the states where freedom is maybe just in a coma but could still potentially be revived.

 

[Euler]

On August 13, 2026 at 03:44 PM CDT, Yeti said:→

... what will all the semi-controlling states that still require Form 4s as part if state law do? ...

WGL had two videos addressing the idea yesterday. The opinion in the videos is that nobody knows.

Personally, I think you'd be screwed. Think about when Chicago required handgun registration, then refused to register handguns. It was a backdoor handgun ban. Those states that require federal forms are going to have to choose a side: ban or free.

Don't worry. The one thing that I haven't seen anyone discussing is that a Democrat-controlled congress just has to re-amend 26 USC 5811 (and maybe 26 USC 5821) to a non-zero tax (like maybe $20k instead of $200 this time) and federal registration comes back. The rest of the NFA is still there. It hasn't gone away.

[ealcala31]

It's amazing that suppressors are getting purchased on a 4473, and with a LTC as a bypass. Yet, 16rd magazines can't be legally sold in IL. Relocation might be the only way of experiencing a REAL 2A. Cause IL's system is hot garbage.

[soundguy]

On 8/13/2026 at 5:26 PM, Euler said:

Think about when Chicago required handgun registration, then refused to register [new]  handguns.

 

We still had handguns.

We still acquired new handguns.

There was no way to enforce registration.

 

On 8/13/2026 at 5:26 PM, Euler said:

Those states that require federal forms are going to have to choose a side: ban or free.

 

 I can't imagine Illinois will choose anything other than ban, going forward, for as long as it's possible.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[ealcala31]

Our status, Texas status.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Db_hiDYRlBJ/?igsh=MWdqc2xpeHdmM3ZnNA==

[Euler]

On August 13, 2026 at 09:46 PM CDT, soundguy said:→

...

On 8/13/2026 at 5:26 PM, Euler said:

Those states that require federal forms are going to have to choose a side: ban or free.

I can't imagine Illinois will choose anything other than ban, going forward, for as long as it's possible.
...

Illinois doesn't require federal forms for anything. It just bans (or doesn't for SBRs and AOWs).

[EdDinIL]

On 8/13/2026 at 5:26 PM, Euler said:

Don't worry. The one thing that I haven't seen anyone discussing is that a Democrat-controlled congress just has to re-amend 26 USC 5811 (and maybe 26 USC 5821) to a non-zero tax (like maybe $20k instead of $200 this time) and federal registration comes back. The rest of the NFA is still there. It hasn't gone away.

Don't be such a doomer, that's my job!

 

Good news, as of right now the $200 reindexed for inflation is a shade under $5K.  That will be their approach.  Reindex for inflation, problem solved.

 

 

If they do reintroduce the tax, what happens to all the NFA items that were purchased between now and then?  

[Jeffrey]

On 8/14/2026 at 9:48 AM, EdDinIL said:

Don't be such a doomer, that's my job!

 

Good news, as of right now the $200 reindexed for inflation is a shade under $5K.  That will be their approach.  Reindex for inflation, problem solved.

 

 

If they do reintroduce the tax, what happens to all the NFA items that were purchased between now and then?  

boat accidents everywhere

[Euler]

On August 14, 2026 at 09:48 AM CDT, EdDinIL said:→

...
If they do reintroduce the tax, what happens to all the NFA items that were purchased between now and then?

The NFA imposes a tax on manufacture and transfer. Supposedly registration exists only to support documentation of no need to pay the tax. Usually "no need to pay the tax" means its already paid, but in 1934 pre-existing owners were given until 60 days after the effective date of the tax to register, thus "proving" they had no need to pay the tax. When the NFA was amended in 1968, the wording was changed to require registration prior to the effective date of the tax.

So if the tax is ever re-imposed, people who acquire NFA items during the "freedom" period will be required to register them or to dispose of them (genuine boat accidents may apply) before whatever the effective date of the tax is. Of course, it is always true that Congress will do whatever it wants.

[Yeti]

On 8/13/2026 at 5:26 PM, Euler said:

Personally, I think you'd be screwed. Think about when Chicago required handgun registration, then refused to register handguns. It was a backdoor handgun ban. Those states that require federal forms are going to have to choose a side: ban or free

Thanks Euler, that tracks.  Since those states still maintain a pretense of freedom but the freedom-haters continue to endorse more and more restrictions, ban is probably their end game (until the Supreme Court rules otherwise).

 

I didn’t even worry about IL as freedom in this state is brain-dead, with the body still only warm on life support and the voters on one side endorsing pulling the plug at every election.

[davel501]

On 8/14/2026 at 3:23 PM, Euler said:

The NFA imposes a tax on manufacture and transfer. Supposedly registration exists only to support documentation of no need to pay the tax. Usually "no need to pay the tax" means its already paid, but in 1934 pre-existing owners were given until 60 days after the effective date of the tax to register, thus "proving" they had no need to pay the tax. When the NFA was amended in 1968, the wording was changed to require registration prior to the effective date of the tax.

So if the tax is ever re-imposed, people who acquire NFA items during the "freedom" period will be required to register them or to dispose of them (genuine boat accidents may apply) before whatever the effective date of the tax is. Of course, it is always true that Congress will do whatever it wants.

 

That arbitrary flip flopping based on who controls Congress seems like it would be hard to defend in a rights case. I guess it depends on who controls SCOTUS. 

[Tvandermyde]

 

[Yeti]

Mark Smith suggests that the win in some regions and explosion in sales is going to increase the volume of suppressors/SBRs/SBSs to the point that the data will show them to be "in common use", meaning that even the blue states will be unable to ban them long term: