Op-Ed: Federal Court Deals Major Blow to the National Firearms Act

By Alexandria Kincaid, Esq.

A recent federal court ruling has dealt a major blow to the National Firearms Act, or NFA, the federal law that for more than 90 years has regulated suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, machine guns and certain other firearms.

The ruling is significant. But it is also being badly oversimplified online. The court did not simply declare the entire National Firearms Act unconstitutional. It did not eliminate every federal firearm law, nor does it override a state’s laws. It also does not allow every American to immediately disregard every NFA requirement.

So, before gun owners celebrate by tossing their ATF paperwork in the trash, there is an important warning: the NFA is not dead, and this ruling does not give every gun owner permission to ignore it.

What the court actually decided is both narrower and constitutionally more interesting.

On August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix in Texas ruled that the federal government can no longer enforce important portions of the NFA against the plaintiffs in the case with respect to firearms for which Congress eliminated the NFA tax.

Let’s review the specific firearms law involved, which is a federal law called the National Firearms Act in 1934.  If you want to know more about it, please read my book “Infringed,” which provides the history and more detail about the National Firearms Act.

Although we generally think of the NFA as a gun-control law, its constitutional foundation was Congress’s power to tax.

The law imposed a hefty tax (in 1934!) on making and transferring certain firearms which spawned an extensive registration and approval system around that tax.

There was a reason for this approach. The federal government has limited constitutional powers. In the 1930s, taxation was also a powerful law-enforcement tool. Remember, the government famously put Al Capone in prison not for murder or organized crime, but for tax evasion.

For decades, gun owners have been subject to an enormous burden for exercising their Second Amendment right to possess certain firearms by way of extra paperwork, extra tax, and what has generally become regarded as bureaucratic BS.  The tax collected does not, and could not, cover the cost of implementing the NFA in today’s world.

Then Congress changed something very important.

In 2025, Congress passed legislation commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Effective January 1, 2026, it reduced the NFA making and transfer taxes to zero dollars for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and firearms classified as “any other weapons.” Machine guns and destructive devices were not treated the same way, and remain subject to NFA taxation.

Congress also left the registration and approval system largely intact.

That created a surprisingly straightforward constitutional question:

If the federal government’s authority for this registration system comes from its power to collect a tax, what happens when there is no longer a tax to collect?

Judge Hendrix’s answer was essentially: you cannot eliminate the tax but keep using the taxing power to justify the bureaucracy surrounding it.

The federal government argued that other constitutional powers allowed the registration system to remain. The court rejected those arguments.

Interestingly, this was not a Second Amendment decision. The court did not decide whether suppressors or short-barreled rifles are protected by the Second Amendment.

Instead, it addressed an even more fundamental constitutional question: Where does the federal government get the power to impose this particular regulatory system in the first place?

This is where some of the information circulating online is getting ahead of the actual court decision.

The judge did not issue an order preventing ATF from enforcing the NFA against every American.

The ruling protects the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members and customers.

Importantly for local readers, Idaho is one of the fifteen states that joined the lawsuit.

But Idaho’s participation does not necessarily mean that every Idaho resident can immediately ignore the NFA. Whether a particular person is protected by the injunction requires more careful analysis.

Machine guns and destructive devices are also a different issue because Congress did not eliminate their NFA taxes in the same way.

In short, claims that “the NFA has been completely struck down” are simply not accurate.

How the ATF will respond is one of the biggest unanswered questions.

The ATF and the Department of Justice defended the NFA in court. They argued that Congress still had constitutional authority to enforce these requirements even after the tax was eliminated.

The judge disagreed.

The ATF is now legally bound by the court’s injunction as to the people and entities it protects. But, as of this writing, the ATF has not issued comprehensive public guidance saying that it will stop enforcing the affected NFA requirements against everyone nationwide.

That leaves some very practical questions unanswered.

For example, how should a firearms dealer handle a suppressor purchase by a customer protected by the injunction? What happens to a customer’s pending Form 1 or Form 4 that was submitted before the court issued this decision? And exactly how will a dealer determine whether a customer is protected?

The precise protection afforded a particular person can depend upon why that person claims protection under the court’s decision.  For example, a person could be protected because of his or her status as a member or customer of a protected organizational or business plaintiff, and because of what particular firearm or transaction is involved.

Gun owners and dealers need clear answers from ATF. For now, “we the people” should use caution.

Do not assume that a Facebook post, YouTube video or headline declaring “the NFA is dead” gives you legal protection.

Other federal firearms laws remain in effect. State laws remain in effect. And violating the NFA can carry serious criminal consequences.

This ruling is nevertheless a major development.

By eliminating the $200 tax, Congress may have done something much more significant than saving gun owners money. It may have removed the constitutional foundation supporting substantial portions of a federal firearms regulatory system that has existed since 1934.

Whether this ultimately results in broader changes to the NFA remains to be seen.

For now, gun owners should watch this case, and ATF’s response to it, very closely. Please note that because this area is changing rapidly, gun owners should verify the current status of the judgment and any ATF guidance before acting in reliance upon it.

Alexandria Kincaid is an Idaho attorney whose practice includes firearms law and the author of the gun owner’s guide to gun laws, “Infringed.” This article is for general educational purposes and is not legal advice.

Note: Thumbnail from Recoil Magazine.