New lawsuit could finally bring down the national firearms act for good

A lawsuit filed on August 1, 2025, could mark the beginning of the end for the National Firearms Act (NFA), a law that’s restricted suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) for nearly a century. Backed by major gun rights groups – including the NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and American Suppressor Association (ASA) – this lawsuit argues that the NFA’s registration system is no longer constitutional now that the $200 tax has been removed.

Jared Yanis, host of Guns & Gadgets, broke down the case in a video he called “a coordinated legal attack on the very structure of the NFA.” According to Yanis, this is not just a minor complaint – it’s a full-scale legal offensive filed in the Eastern District of Missouri, and it could reshape how firearms like suppressors and SBRs are regulated nationwide.

The Tax Is Gone, So What’s Left?

The legal foundation for the NFA has always been tied to its taxation power. When Congress passed the law in 1934, it imposed a $200 tax on specific firearms and required strict registration to enforce payment. As Mark Smith from Four Boxes Diner explained, that tax justified the government’s authority under Article I of the Constitution. But now, thanks to the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” that tax is gone for most NFA items.

Mark Smith emphasized the constitutional problem: “If there’s no tax, there’s no justification for the registration and fingerprinting requirements.” Congress is a government of limited, enumerated powers. Without a tax, Smith argued, the entire regulatory scheme loses its legal foundation. The only reason the courts ever upheld the NFA was because it functioned as a tax law, not a gun control law.

The Lawsuit Hits on Two Fronts

According to the Firearms Policy Coalition, the lawsuit known as Brown v. ATF isn’t just about Article I. It also challenges the NFA under the Second Amendment. In their official press release, FPC President Brandon Combs said, “The NFA isn’t just unconstitutional – it’s a tyrannical abomination.” Combs claims the law violates both the individual right to keep and bear arms and the limits placed on federal power.

The FPC’s argument is simple: suppressors and SBRs are arms protected by the Second Amendment. That means any regulation must be consistent with the historical tradition of firearm laws, as established in the 2022 Bruen Supreme Court ruling. And according to this lawsuit, there’s no history, none, of requiring Americans to register their privately owned firearms.

Coalition Warfare: Two Lawsuits, One Goal

Braden Langley of Langley Outdoors Academy celebrated the move as a major turning point. In his video, Langley highlighted how this lawsuit follows another case already filed by Gun Owners of America in a different circuit. “We’ve never seen coalitions like this before,” Langley said. “Two separate lawsuits in two different courts both aimed at the same target: the unconstitutional NFA.”

Langley was especially excited that the NRA, FPC, ASA, and SAF had set aside rivalries to work together. He noted that the lawsuit’s strategic location in Missouri gives it a strong chance, especially with a pro-2A Attorney General like Andrew Bailey in the mix. “This is what they were afraid of,” Langley said, referring to anti-gun lawmakers who tried to preserve the $1 tax just to keep the NFA alive.

The Second Amendment Argument: Straight from the Supreme Court

Attorney Mark Smith laid out the Second Amendment theory with sharp detail. In his Four Boxes Diner video, Smith explained that firearms like suppressors and SBRs are clearly “arms” under the Constitution. And under Bruen, the burden now shifts to the government to prove a historical precedent for regulating them.

Smith backed this up by citing Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent in the Heller II case from 2011, where Kavanaugh argued that registration schemes have no historical roots and should be considered unconstitutional. “There was no gun registry in 1791,” Smith said. “And if it didn’t exist then, it has no place under the Second Amendment now.”

Real-World Impact on Gun Owners

One of the most compelling elements of the case is the inclusion of real-world plaintiffs. Jared Yanis highlighted Chris Brown, a Missouri gun owner who wanted to sell his suppressor to a friend but was scared off by the paperwork and risk. Another plaintiff, Alan Mayville, has been waiting to buy a suppressor until the legal fog clears. A third plaintiff is a Black-owned gun shop, Prime Protection STL, which hasn’t sold a single NFA item due to customer distrust in federal registration systems.

As Yanis explained, the case isn’t just about legal theory – it’s about real people facing barriers to exercising their rights. “This is about making sure law-abiding Americans aren’t treated like felons just for wanting a quieter rifle,” he said.

What the Lawsuit Demands

According to the NRA’s press release, the lawsuit seeks three major actions:

1. Strike down the NFA’s registration scheme for untaxed items as unconstitutional.
2. Bar the ATF from enforcing those registration requirements.
3. Grant permanent injunctive relief to protect gun owners from future overreach.

Doug Hamlin, CEO of the NRA, said bluntly, “This infringement of individual rights has gone on far too long.” SAF’s Adam Kraut echoed that, saying the NFA’s requirements now serve “no purpose” and are just a hurdle to exercising constitutional rights.

Why This Lawsuit Matters More Than Ever

This case is about more than guns. It’s about government limits. The NFA stood for nearly 90 years because of a single thread – the tax. Once that thread was cut, the whole structure should’ve collapsed. But the federal government, through the ATF, kept the registration system in place, as if nothing had changed.

It’s a dangerous precedent. If the government can create a registration system without a legal basis, what’s to stop it from applying the same logic to other rights? Speech, religion, or voting? This lawsuit, in that sense, isn’t just about the Second Amendment – it’s about the rule of law itself.

A Long Fight Ahead

Even with strong arguments, the road will be long. As Braden Langley noted, “This is a marathon, not a sprint.” The lawsuit has just been filed. Hearings, appeals, and possibly a Supreme Court showdown could take years. But the strategy is clear. By attacking the NFA from both the taxation and Second Amendment angles, the plaintiffs hope to force the courts to act.

Langley believes that even partial victories, say a 51% win, will add up over time. “We don’t have to win every time,” he said. “We just have to win most of the time. That’s how we take this law down, piece by piece.”

Coalition Strength Means Momentum

What makes this case stand out is the unity behind it. The NRA, FPC, SAF, and ASA don’t always agree. But here, they’ve combined forces in a way rarely seen. As the Firearms Policy Coalition put it, “We’re proud to fight alongside our allies to end this corrupt, immoral law.”

Knox Williams of the ASA added, “Common sense and the law are on our side.” With strong constitutional arguments, dedicated plaintiffs, and powerful organizations backing it, Brown v. ATF may be the NFA’s greatest threat to date.

Could This Be It?

We don’t get moments like this often. The conditions are rare: a broken law with no legal leg left to stand on, a powerful coalition of gun rights groups, and legal precedent shifting in their favor. The plaintiffs in Brown v. ATF aren’t just asking for small changes – they want the entire registration scheme wiped off the books.

If they succeed, it won’t just be the end of Form 1s and Form 4s. It will be the end of nearly a century of federal overreach cloaked as taxation. And if that happens, it’ll be one of the most important Second Amendment victories in American history.