A federal judge in Texas just told Washington it can no longer enforce a 90-year-old law policing suppressors and short-barreled guns.
Quick Take
- U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled key parts of the 1934 National Firearms Act unenforceable for suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and certain other firearms.
- The ruling leans on Congress eliminating the related federal taxes last year through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which President Trump signed.
- Hendrix said the law’s constitutional basis, Congress’s taxing power, disappeared once the tax dropped to zero.
- Kansas and 14 other states joined gun-rights groups in the lawsuit that led to the decision.
- Gun-rights organizations are calling it a major step toward dismantling the broader federal registration scheme.
A Nearly Century-Old Law Loses Its Legal Foundation
Judge Hendrix, sitting in the Northern District of Texas, ruled that the government cannot enforce National Firearms Act rules on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and certain other firearms.
The Associated Press reported the decision came more than a year after President Trump signed legislation wiping out the taxes tied to those items. Hendrix said the provisions “can no longer be justified” under the taxing power that upheld them since the 1930s.
Texas judge rules that law regulating firearm suppressors and some guns can’t be enforced https://t.co/5Rije7aNh8
— O.C. Register (@ocregister) August 5, 2026
The National Firearms Act started in 1934 as a tax law, not a straight ban. Congress used its power to tax as the legal excuse to demand registration, fingerprints, and a $200 fee before anyone could own a suppressor or a short-barreled gun. Courts upheld it for decades on that narrow ground. Once lawmakers zeroed out the tax, the law’s constitutional foundation started looking shaky.
How a Tax Cut Turned Into a Courtroom Weapon
Last year’s tax package didn’t repeal the National Firearms Act outright. It simply dropped the tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms to zero dollars.
Gun-rights lawyers argued that move gutted the law’s only constitutional leg to stand on, since Congress can’t regulate these items under a taxing power if there’s no tax left to collect. Hendrix agreed, and that argument is now the backbone of his ruling.
The case, known as Jensen v. ATF, was pushed forward by the Firearms Policy Coalition along with groups including Gun Owners of America and the Silencer Shop Foundation.
The organization called it a “major blow” against the old federal firearms law. Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach and attorneys general from 14 other states joined the fight, framing it as a states’-rights defense of gun ownership.
What the Ruling Actually Changes on the Ground
For now, the decision blocks enforcement of registration, transfer-approval, and making-approval requirements for the affected firearm categories against the plaintiffs in this case.
That means suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and certain other weapons covered by the law are no longer subject to those federal paperwork hurdles for the parties involved, according to reporting on the ruling.
Gun owners have waited years for this kind of opening. Suppressors reduce noise and recoil, and many hunters and shooters buy them for hearing protection, not for anything sinister.
Treating a $200 tax stamp and months of federal waiting as the price of protecting your ears never made much sense to millions of law-abiding owners, and this ruling finally puts that mismatch in front of a judge willing to say so plainly.
A Fight Far From Finished
This ruling doesn’t erase the National Firearms Act nationwide. It applies to the plaintiffs in this specific lawsuit, and the federal government can appeal.
Earlier rounds of related litigation, including a separate Texas-made suppressor case, were dismissed by courts on standing grounds, showing how unsettled this legal terrain still is. Expect the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to challenge Hendrix’s reasoning at the appellate level.
Still, the ruling hands gun-rights advocates their clearest legal opening in years. It ties directly to a law Congress already passed and a president already signed, not a novel judicial theory pulled from thin air.
Whether it holds up on appeal will decide if this becomes the moment the old tax-based justification for federal gun regulation finally runs out of road.
Sources:
apnews.com, usnews.com, youtube.com, thetexan.news, newsmax.com, x.com, rifleconfigurator.com
