Fifteen Republican-led states have backed a sweeping federal lawsuit that could dismantle much of the nearly century-old National Firearms Act. The lawsuit argues that Congress’s repeal of most taxes on certain regulated weapons stripped the government of its constitutional authority to require their registration.
🚨HUGE UPDATE!🚨
The Big Beautiful Lawsuit by GOA, @gunfoundation, @FRACAction, @palmettoarmory, @silencerco, @SilencerShop & B&T USA just got bigger.
AG @KenPaxtonTX announces Texas & 14 other states joined to challenge the NFA’s unconstitutional registration rules.🔥 https://t.co/AUzMMLsgMR pic.twitter.com/gHMwaGzeBB
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) August 10, 2025
In a post on its X account, GOA said its “Big Beautiful Lawsuit” with allied groups, including the Gun Owners Foundation, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo, Silencer Shop, and B&T USA, “just got bigger” as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the addition of Texas and 14 other states to the lawsuit.
The new statute slashed the making and transfer tax on silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” defined under the NFA from $200 to $0. The plaintiffs contend that the change removed the foundation that allowed the 1934 law to survive past constitutional scrutiny. Supporters have likened the strategy to California v. Texas, the case that sought to strike down the Affordable Care Act after Congress zeroed out its individual mandate penalty.
Critics, including these plaintiffs, say registration is intrusive and allows the government to collect sensitive personal information from lawful gun owners. They contend registration requirements treat owners of items such as suppressors and short-barreled rifles as if they were criminal suspects, even when the data does not show that registration prevents crimes. Now, the pro-gun groups are using the OBBB’s removal of the taxes to challenge the constitutionality of the registry required by the National Firearms Act.
The constitutional foundation on which the NFA rested has dissolved, the filing states, noting that in the 1937 Sonzinsky v. United States case, the Supreme Court upheld the NFA as “only a taxing measure” and found its registration provisions “obviously supportable as in aid of a revenue purpose.” They argue that with no tax left to collect for most covered firearms, those provisions “are now unconstitutional.”
The case is assigned to U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee. The National Rifle Association is leading a separate but similar lawsuit before U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark, also appointed by Trump.
From taxing power to alleged overreach
Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 during the Great Depression, invoking its Article I authority to “lay and collect Taxes.” The law imposed a $200 transfer tax, about $5,000 in today’s dollars, on certain firearms, a cost so high it effectively kept most Americans from buying them.
The NFA also created a national registry for those weapons, a provision the Supreme Court upheld in the 1968 Haynes v. United States case as “an interrelated statutory system for the taxation of certain classes of firearms.”
Now, plaintiffs in the new lawsuits argue that the previous framework has collapsed. With the One Big Beautiful Bill Act reducing the tax on most NFA-regulated items to zero, they say Congress can no longer justify the registry under its taxing power. Nor, they contend, can it rely on the Commerce Clause, a fallback argument the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has previously rejected in other NFA-related cases.
“The NFA cannot be upheld under any other Article I power,” the complaint states, citing the 2012 Supreme Court case NFIB v. Sebelius, on the basis that the federal government must point to a specific constitutional grant of authority for each action it takes.
What weapons would and would not be exempt if groups succeed
The GOA and NRA lawsuits clarify that their constitutional challenges apply only to firearms and attachments whose making and transfer tax was eliminated by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That includes suppressors (silencers), short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” under the NFA’s definition.
As the NRA’s Missouri complaint puts it, with the taxes eliminated on these items, the NFA registration requirement should now be seen as “unconstitutional as applied to those arms.”
The OBBB did not repeal the $200 tax on machine guns or destructive devices such as grenades, mortars, or large-caliber weapons, meaning those would remain fully regulated under the NFA even if the plaintiffs prevail.
In addition to their tax-power claim, both sets of plaintiffs argue that restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles fail the Bruen standard, which stems from a 6-3 decision in 2022 that informed lower courts to weigh gun laws in a manner that is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. They insist these items are not “dangerous and unusual” and are widely owned for lawful purposes.
Privacy, delays, and ‘burdensome’ compliance
GOA’s amended complaint devotes pages to describing how the NFA’s registration requirements intrude on personal privacy and slow commerce. Plaintiffs must provide ATF with their name, home address, date of birth, demographic details, fingerprints, photographs, and full descriptions of the firearm — information they liken to “that obtained from an individual being arrested and charged with a crime.”
Texas resident and plaintiff Brady Wetz says he would buy additional silencers and short-barreled rifles “within 30 days” if not for the paperwork and monthslong ATF approval process. Commercial plaintiffs such as Palmetto State Armory, B&T USA, and SilencerCo told the court that potential customers often abandon purchases rather than submit to the NFA’s registration requirements, costing them significant revenue.
State plaintiffs argue the same rules waste taxpayer money by imposing “operational, administrative, and compliance-related costs” on state agencies that own NFA-regulated firearms but no longer owe any tax on them.
Parallel NRA lawsuit takes broader aim
The GOA-led challenge is not the only one in play. Last month, the National Rifle Association joined the Second Amendment Foundation, the American Suppressor Association, and others in filing a nearly identical suit in the Eighth Circuit, but with additional constitutional claims.
While the NRA’s filing echoes GOA’s central tax-power argument, it also contends that the NFA’s restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles violate the Second Amendment under the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen case in 2022.
“Because suppressors and short-barreled rifles are neither dangerous nor unusual, and there is no historical tradition of requiring the registration of protected arms, the NFA’s registration scheme … is unconstitutional,” the NRA plaintiffs wrote.
They point to ATF data showing more than 4.5 million suppressors registered nationwide, arguing such devices are in “common use” and provide legitimate benefits, including reducing recoil, improving accuracy, and protecting hearing — benefits even the Justice Department has acknowledged in court filings.
The NRA’s complaint also attempts to preempt one of the Justice Department’s likely defenses, a major one being that Congress can regulate under the Commerce Clause. It argues that the NFA contains “no interstate commerce jurisdictional hook” and applies to firearms made and kept entirely within one state.
NRA saw OBBB signing as a ‘big opening’ for registration reforms
In an interview with Washington Secrets last week, NRA CEO Doug Hamlin said the July 4 tax repeal “was a big opening for us” and could make purchasing suppressors or short-barreled rifles as straightforward as buying any other firearm, which involves simply selecting it, passing an FBI background check, and paying the store clerk.
Gone would be the “multiple-page sales application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, complete with fingerprints, the registration of the item for federal files, and the monthslong wait for approval even before the FBI background check takes place.”
Hamlin argued there is “no historical tradition that supports the registration of suppressors and short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns,” calling the NFA “a product of government efforts to shut down crime gangs” that no longer applies today.
“1934 was a long time ago, and you don’t have Al Capone and the rest running around. And so I think it’s time that we get this done,” he said, cautioning that the litigation could take “three to five years” to reach the Supreme Court.
The lawsuits, filed in Texas and Missouri, seek injunctions blocking the Justice Department and ATF from enforcing the NFA’s registration rules for firearms that no longer carry a tax.
ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL ACT OPENS DOOR TO ENDING SOME GUN CONTROLS
If either challenge succeeds, it could roll back registration requirements for millions of suppressors and short-barreled firearms, upending one of the oldest federal gun control frameworks.
The ATF declined to comment to the Washington Examiner, saying it does not comment on pending litigation.
