Has the NFA Gone Away?

News from Reeves & Dola, LLP

On August 5, 2026, a Texas federal district court ruled certain provisions in the National Firearms Act (NFA) to be unconstitutional as applied to the named plaintiffs and, where applicable, the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers. The case is Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, and the court’s decision has caused all sorts of internet chatter. The purpose of this alert is to sort through the rumors and focus on the facts of the case and the resulting impact of the court’s final judgment, which went into effect on August 13, 2026. The NFA has not gone away, but thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and this landmark decision, we are starting to see cracks in the statute’s foundation.

Scope of the Ruling

CAUTION! The Silencer Foundation case did not result in a nationwide ban on NFA controls.

Who benefits? The named plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers (current and future). This ruling does not apply to the general public nor to any associational plaintiff’s supporters. In addition, the Special (Occupational) Tax (SOT) on licensed importers, manufacturers, and dealers of NFA firearms under 26 U.S.C. § 5801(a) remains in place.

There are two groups of plaintiffs. This is because the district court consolidated what originally started out as two separate cases: Jensen v. ATF (No. 6:26-CV-227) and Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF (No. 6:25-CV-056). The coalition of individuals, businesses, associations, and states that make up the two groups of plaintiffs are listed below:

Silencer Shop Plaintiffs

• Silencer Shop Foundation
• Brady Wetz
• B&T USA, LLC
• Palmetto State Armory, LLC
• SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC
• Gun Owners of America, Inc.
• Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc.
• Gun Owners Foundation
• 15 states (Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming)

Jensen Plaintiffs

• Individuals John Jensen, Jeremy Neusch, and David Lynn Smith (Texas firearms owners)
• Hot Shots Custom, LLC
• Texas State Rifle Association
• FPC Action Foundation
• Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

What NFA firearms are affected? Untaxed silencers, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short- barreled shotguns (SBSs), and Any Other Weapons (AOWs) (meaning certain concealable weapons specified in the statute’s definition of “Any Other Weapon”). The ruling does not extend to the tax and registration controls over machineguns or destructive devices, nor does it allow a commercial plaintiff’s customer to avoid the challenged NFA provisions for all NFA firearms they possess, transfer, sell, make, and manufacture.

What NFA provisions were found unconstitutional? The NFA sections mandating registration and other actions before making, transferring, or possessing the specific covered NFA firearms, and the associated penalty provisions, as applied to plaintiffs and related parties (see above). Specifically, 26 U.S.C. §§ 5812(a)–(b), 5822, 5841(a)-(c), (e), 5861(b)–(f), and 27 C.F.R. §§ 479.62(a)–(d) and 479.84(a)–(d). In addition, regarding the Jensen plaintiffs, ATF is enjoined from enforcing the marking and registration requirements of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5842(b) and 5861(i).

What gave rise to the NFA challenges? The One Big Beautiful Bill amended the NFA by eliminating the transfer and making taxes on SBSs, SBRs, silencers, and AOWs. Plaintiffs argued, and the court agreed, that because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from the untaxed firearms, the statute’s provisions governing registration and transfer requirements for the untaxed firearms exceed Congress’s enumerated powers under the Constitution. The court held: “By zeroing out the transfer and making taxes for most NFA firearms, Congress eliminated the constitutional basis for the regulations that formerly supported the taxes for those firearms. No longer can the challenged NFA provisions be justified—as they have been for nearly 90 years—under Congress’s taxing power.” 2026 WL 2255460 at 1 (N.D. Texas 2026).

Now What?

This court decision does not nullify the whole NFA, and we will have to wait and see what ATF will do in light of the ruling. In the meantime, there are important compliance traps to avoid:

1. GCA Transfer Requirements Intact. While covered transfers (plaintiff-sourced) will not require an ATF-approved Form 4, the Form 4473 and NICS check must be completed prior to transfer. The NICS check will now be necessary as the NFA-based exemption will no longer apply to these covered transfers.
2. Beware of State Laws Requiring Registration. All NFA transfers must comply with the transferee’s state law. Some states require federal registration, and the court’s ruling does not bar ATF from processing voluntary registration and transfer applications.
3. SOTs Still Subject to NFA. Licensed manufacturers and importer SOTs should continue to register the NFA firearms they manufacture or import.
4. SOT and Interstate Transfers. The NFA provisions governing transfers between SOTs (26 U.S.C. § 5852(d)) and the prohibition on interstate transport, delivery, and receipt of an unregistered firearm (26 U.S.C. § 5861(j)) were not enjoined and continue in force. So, Forms 3 to transfer NFA firearms between FFL/SOTs should continue to be filed as it may still be unlawful to transfer unregistered NFA firearms across state lines.
5. NFA Firearms Outside the Scope of the Silencer Shop Foundation ruling remain subject to NFA registration and transfer paperwork.

Conclusion

Interestingly, the defendants (ATF and others) did not seek appellate relief from the court’s injunction, and the Final Judgment went into effect on August 13, 2026. Nevertheless, proceed carefully under this ruling. The court’s decision applies only to the named plaintiffs and, where applicable, the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers. The controls over machineguns and destructive devices remain in place.

ATF has not yet issued guidance pursuant to this case, but we will keep you informed of any developments. If you have questions whether the ruling applies to you, you should consult qualified legal counsel before taking action.

About Reeves & Dola

Reeves & Dola is a Washington, DC law firm that specializes in helping clients navigate the highly regulated and complex world of manufacturing, sales and international trade of defense and commercial products. We have a deep understanding of the Federal regulatory process, and use our expertise in working with a variety of Federal agencies to assist our clients with their transactional and regulatory needs. Learn more at https://reevesdola.com/. Join their mailing list and stay informed of industry news.