Major New Federal Lawsuit To Finally Take Down the NFA

The National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) is back in federal court – this time in Jensen v. ATF, a case that could reshape how (or whether) the federal government may regulate suppressors and short-barreled rifles (SBRs).

In an October 9 press release, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced it had filed a “major new federal lawsuit” in the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division, seeking to end the NFA’s registration regime for categories of firearms that are no longer taxed. 

FPC President Brandon Combs framed the suit as part of a “nationwide strategy to dismantle this federal ban scheme,” promising to “fight forward until all peaceable people can exercise their rights when, where, and how they choose”.

Who’s Suing – And What They Want

According to FPC, the plaintiffs include FPC Action Foundation, three individual gun owners, Hot Shots Custom LLC, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, and the Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA).

They’re asking the court for a declaratory judgment that the NFA’s regulation of certain now-untaxed firearms exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers and violates the Second Amendment, plus a permanent injunction halting enforcement of those provisions.

In short, if there’s no tax, they argue, there’s no constitutional hook to require federal registration, fingerprints, prior approval, and criminal penalties for simple possession.

Why The Tax Matters Now

The NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) amplified the same core point in its own announcement of the case: the NFA began life as a tax statute. “Originally, the NFA imposed a $200 tax and established a tax-enforcement registration regime,” NRA-ILA explains. 

But after Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), that tax was eliminated for suppressors, SBRs, short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and “any other weapons” (AOWs).

With the tax gone, the NRA-ILA says, the NFA’s registration rules “can no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power – nor any other authority granted under Article I”.

The Legal Theory In Plain English

For decades, the NFA’s constitutionality rested on the notion that it was a revenue measure, with registration operating “in aid of a revenue purpose.”

As attorney William Kirk of Washington Gun Law summarizes in his video breakdown, a 1937 Supreme Court decision upheld the NFA on exactly that taxation rationale.

But if the tax vanishes, the scaffolding that supported the registry collapses, the Jensen plaintiffs argue.

FPC’s complaint, as Kirk paraphrases it, says that to the extent the NFA still imposes requirements on making, transferring, possessing, or using untaxed firearms, it “cannot be justified as an exercise of any Article I power” – tax, commerce, or otherwise.

It’s Not The Whole NFA – Yet

Kirk, who has been tracking NFA litigation closely, is careful to note that Jensen “is not an attack to the NFA in its entirety.” The case targets suppressors and SBRs, categories newly untaxed by OBBB, rather than, say, machine guns.

That narrowing is strategic. It seizes on the statute’s changed posture post-OBBB and keeps the fight focused where the taxing-power argument is strongest.

From a litigation strategy standpoint, that makes sense: precise questions make for cleaner answers.

The Commerce-Clause Wrinkle

Jensen doesn’t stop with the tax point. As Kirk highlights, the complaint also challenges the NFA’s reach under the Commerce Clause, especially for Form 1 “maker” items (like converting a braced pistol to an SBR at home).

If an individual fabricates and keeps an item entirely within one state, FPC asks, what interstate commerce is Congress regulating? That’s not a throwaway line; it addresses a favorite government fallback when the taxing power gets shaky.

By placing intrastate, noncommercial conduct in the crosshairs, the plaintiffs try to close off an alternative constitutional door.

The Bruen Test: Are Suppressors And SBRs Protected “Arms”?

Even “wholly apart” from enumerated-powers issues, FPC says the NFA’s registration regime flunks the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework.

Under Bruen, if the text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct, the government must justify its restriction by pointing to a historical tradition of analogous regulation.

Kirk notes that the government has previously stipulated in related litigation that suppressors are covered by the Second Amendment—short-circuiting a tedious threshold fight. 

From there, the plaintiffs argue suppressors and SBRs are not “dangerous and unusual,” pointing to robust, lawful ownership in modern America.

Kirk cites ATF’s own figures showing hundreds of thousands of registered SBRs as of 2021, and the surging prevalence of suppressors in commerce.

NRA-ILA’s Second Amendment Argument

NRA-ILA’s press release echoes that Bruen logic: the NFA’s registration regime “violates the Second Amendment” because “there is no tradition that supports” requiring pre-approval and registration for protected arms like suppressors and SBRs.

If an arm is in common use for lawful purposes, the “dangerous and unusual” label doesn’t stick. And if the government cannot produce a Founding-era analogue for prior-permission registries of otherwise lawful arms, Bruen says the law cannot stand.

The Relief Sought: More Than A Paper Win

As Kirk emphasizes, the Jensen complaint doesn’t just ask for a declaration; it seeks an injunction barring ATF from “implementing, enforcing, or otherwise acting under the authority of the NFA” against the plaintiffs and their members for conduct that hinges on the now-untaxed categories.

If granted, that would be significant in the real world: no more pre-approval Form 1s or Form 4s, no fingerprints, no multi-month waits, and no felonies for possessing a suppressor or SBR that isn’t in a federal registry – at least as to the parties covered by the injunction.

How This Fits Into The Broader Campaign

FPC’s announcement situates Jensen as a next step following Brown v. ATF, a similar challenge filed with allies including NRA, Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and American Suppressor Association (ASA) in the Eastern District of Missouri on August 1.

NRA-ILA likewise calls Jensen “the second lawsuit” from the NRA-ASA-FPC-SAF coalition post-OBBB. The coordinated approach matters: different courts, slightly different theories, and overlapping plaintiffs increase the odds that at least one case develops a factual and legal record the Supreme Court will be willing to review.

My Read: Strong Facts, Tough Forum Fights, And A Clean Constitutional Question

As a matter of first principles, the plaintiffs picked a fight worth having. The NFA was justified as a tax. Congress then zeroed out the tax for whole categories while leaving the punitive registration regime intact.

That creates a crisp constitutional question the courts can’t dodge: can a “tax-enforcement” registry persist when there is nothing left to enforce?

Expect the government to argue alternative powers (commerce, necessary and proper) and to analogize the registry to historical surety and inspection laws under Bruen.

But on the facts presented here – intrastate making, common-use items, and a vanished tax—the plaintiffs have a lane.

Venue, Timing, And What To Watch Next

Filing in Amarillo (N.D. Tex.) is no accident. Plaintiffs often seek a forum where they believe the law will be applied rigorously and promptly. If a preliminary injunction is granted, the government will likely sprint to the Fifth Circuit, where recent Second Amendment decisions have been notably attentive to Bruen.

Meanwhile, Brown v. ATF percolates in Missouri. Parallel dockets mean the legal issues mature on separate tracks, improving the chances that at least one clean record reaches the Supreme Court. Win or lose at early stages, these cases are designed for appellate review.

Credit Where Due – And Why The Coalition Matters

FPC supplied the lawsuit’s launch details, plaintiffs, and constitutional framing. NRA-ILA laid out the tax-power theory in accessible terms and tied Jensen to the post-OBBB landscape.

Attorney William Kirk provided a practitioner’s walkthrough, explaining for everyday gun owners the practical differences between acquiring “regular” firearms and NFA items, the 1937 tax rationale, and why Bruen’s dangerous-and-unusual test likely favors suppressors and SBRs.

Together, these sources paint a cohesive picture: a coordinated, multi-front challenge to a legacy regime that no longer sits comfortably on its original constitutional footing.

A Carefully Targeted Strike

Jensen v. ATF is not just another paper volley; it’s a carefully targeted strike at the NFA’s central premise in a post-OBBB world.

If courts agree that a taxless “tax registry” can’t ride on the taxing power – and that Bruen forbids prior-permission registries for common, protected arms – the case could dramatically ease the legal burdens around suppressors and SBRs.

If they don’t, expect an appeal, more filings in other circuits, and, eventually, a request for the Supreme Court to say whether the NFA’s spine survived the removal of its tax.

Either way, FPC, NRA-ILA, and seasoned observers like William Kirk have teed up the question as cleanly as it’s likely to get.