On July 4, 2025, the Silencer Shop Foundation filed one of the most important Second Amendment lawsuits in modern history. 

The goal was simple: challenge the federal government’s continued enforcement of the National Firearms Act against silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs after Congress reduced the tax on those items to $0. 

One year later, that fight is still moving forward. 

The Department of Justice and ATF have not backed down. Neither have we. 

How We Got Here 

For nearly 90 years, the federal government justified the National Firearms Act as a tax law. The NFA required Americans to pay a $200 tax to make or transfer certain firearms and accessories, including silencers, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs. 

That changed when the One Big Beautiful Bill reduced the NFA making and transfer tax on those items to $0, effective January 1, 2026. ATF has since updated its own regulations to reflect the reduced $0 tax rate for silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs. 

That created the central issue in this lawsuit: 

If the NFA was justified as a tax, what happens when the tax is gone? 

Our answer is clear. Once the tax is $0, the remaining registration and approval scheme can no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power. The government cannot keep a federal registry alive by calling it a tax law when there is no tax left to collect. 

That is why Silencer Shop Foundation, along with Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, B&T USA, Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo, Brady Wetz, and a coalition of states, filed suit against ATF, DOJ, and federal officials in the Northern District of Texas. 

What the Lawsuit Argues 

The lawsuit challenges the NFA’s continued enforcement against newly untaxed items, including: 

The core argument is that the NFA’s remaining restrictions exceed Congress’s constitutional authority. 

The government has tried to defend the NFA under both the Taxing Clause and the Commerce Clause. We argue that neither one works. 

The Taxing Clause does not support a regulatory scheme when the tax has been reduced to $0. The Commerce Clause does not give the federal government unlimited power to regulate lawful possession and transfer of constitutionally protected arms simply because those items may move through commerce at some point. 

This case is not about avoiding a tax. The tax is already gone. 

This case is about whether the federal government can keep enforcing the rest of the NFA against law-abiding Americans after the constitutional basis for that system has been removed. 

Fifteen States Have Joined the Fight 

This case is not just backed by industry groups and Second Amendment organizations. Fifteen states have joined as plaintiffs in support of the challenge. 

Those states are: 

If you don't see your state represented here, we recommend calling your representatives and making your opinion known.

The amended complaint added those states as plaintiffs, showing broad support for the argument that the federal government has exceeded its authority by continuing to enforce the NFA registry against $0 tax items. 

This is not a fringe argument. This is a nationwide constitutional fight backed by state governments, Second Amendment organizations, industry leaders, and individual Americans who are tired of seeing ordinary gun owners treated like criminals for owning common, lawful arms and accessories. 

DOJ Keeps Fighting 

Over the last year, DOJ and ATF have continued to defend the NFA and the registry. 

Both sides filed cross motions for summary judgment, asking the court to rule without a trial. Our side filed its motion for summary judgment in October 2025, seeking a declaration that the challenged NFA provisions are unconstitutional and an injunction stopping their enforcement against newly untaxed firearms. 

The government responded by arguing that the NFA can still survive under the Taxing Clause and Commerce Clause, even after the tax was reduced to $0. DOJ has also continued filing additional evidence and declarations in an effort to support its position. 

After DOJ submitted additional material, the court allowed our side to respond with a sur-reply. That sur-reply was filed on May 20, 2026, completing briefing on the cross motions for summary judgment in the lead case. 

In plain English, the major legal arguments are now in front of the court. 

Now we wait for the judge to rule. 

A Big Boost From the Fifth Circuit 

The Silencer Shop Foundation case also received important support from a recent Fifth Circuit decision in the home distilling case, McNutt v. United States Department of Justice. 

In that case, the Fifth Circuit held that the federal government could not use the Taxing Clause to justify a ban on home-based distilleries simply because the ban might make tax collection easier. The court rejected the idea that Congress can prohibit activity just because untaxed activity may be harder to monitor. 

That reasoning matters here. 

DOJ has argued that the NFA registration system still helps collect special occupational taxes from manufacturers and dealers. But the Hobby Distillers ruling undercuts that logic. A federal restriction does not automatically become constitutional just because the government says it might make some other tax easier to collect. 

If Congress wants to tax something, it can tax it. But it cannot use a $0 tax as a blank check to maintain a nationwide registry of protected arms. 

The Other Texas NFA Case Has Been Consolidated 

There is also another major NFA challenge in Texas: Jensen v. ATF. 

That case was filed in the Northern District of Texas on October 9, 2025, and challenges the NFA’s continued registration requirements after the tax on silencers and short-barreled rifles was reduced to zero. 

The court has now consolidated Jensen with the Silencer Shop Foundation case. The Silencer Shop Foundation case is the lead case, and Jensen is the member case. Going forward, filings will proceed under the Silencer Shop Foundation caption.