A SureFire firearm sound suppressor, commonly referred to as a silencer, is displayed during the National Rifle Association (NRA) Annual Meeting in Houston, Texas on May 28, 2022. A recent court ruling eased restrictions around the purchase of suppressors.
PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP
hide caption
toggle caption
PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP
Gun rights groups are celebrating a federal ruling that lifts restrictions on the purchase of silencers, used to lessen the sound of gunshots, and certain firearms.
Judge James Wesley Hendrix out of the Northern District of Texas invalidated key components of the nearly 100-year-old National Firearms Act (NFA) in more than a dozen states.
Hendrix gave the Justice Department one week to submit an emergency appeal before his decision went into effect. But the DOJ never did. The department has more than a month to submit a non-emergency appeal, but it’s unlikely. The agency has made a wider push to restore gun rights to people with felony convictions, with exceptions, including violent offenses such as domestic violence and gang-related offenses, according to a final rule published Monday.
Under the Texas ruling, some Americans can now buy and sell those silencers and weapons without first registering them with the federal government or submitting photos of themselves or fingerprints.
Gun rights groups are hailing the ruling as a significant win.
“This is truly one of the greatest Second Amendment victories in the last 100 years,” said Erich Pratt, the senior vice president of Gun Owners of America. “It’s something that we have wanted since we were first incorporated in 1976.”
But it leaves a confusing patchwork of rules and regulations, since it applies only to plaintiffs in the Texas case.
Here’s what we know so far.
How did we get here?
The National Firearms Act, established in the 1930s and born out of Prohibition-era gang violence, regulated the sale and registration of certain rifles, shotguns and suppressors, commonly referred to as “silencers”.
When Congress passed the NFA in 1934, the goal was to restrict weapons seen as particularly dangerous.
The law imposed a $200 tax on the manufacture and transfer of these guns and required owners to register those weapons.
The tax stayed on the books until 2025, when Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. A provision cut the tax down to $0 for the transfer and manufacture of short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles and silencers.
Some states and gun rights groups, like Gun Owners of America, shortly thereafter sued the federal government. They argued that without a tax, there’s no constitutional basis for any of the other requirements in the National Firearms Act.
Hendrix sided with them, writing in his decision last week, “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.”
Gun control advocates say the decision makes Americans a lot less safe now.
“It is the antithesis of public safety to now all of a sudden say, we’re going to unleash these weapons into communities and onto our streets,” said Jack Budish, federal counsel for Everytown for Gun Safety.
What’s the impact of this decision?
Crucially, the ruling does not apply nationwide.
It applies only to the plaintiffs in the Texas case. That includes the groups that sued, including the Silencer Shop Foundation, Gun Owners of America and other gun rights groups and their members in the states involved in the case.
The ruling applies to certain short-barreled shotguns and rifles and suppressors. It also applies to a niche subset of firearms referred to by the federal government as “any other weapons.” This is a catch-all for concealable, unique firearms that don’t fall into other categories. They can include gadget guns, like pen guns or umbrella guns.
And Gun Owners of America said, some states may still require additional rules and firearm registration forms may still be required under the federal Gun Control Act.
Because of the legal murkiness, Pratte urges people to talk to an attorney before foregoing registration.
What’s next?
There are still two ongoing cases challenging the NFA in Missouri and Kentucky.
The DOJ has defended the National Firearms Act in those cases.
The DOJ did not respond to NPR’s questions about whether it plans to appeal in the future, but in a statement, it said, “The Department respects Americans’ Second Amendment rights and is currently assessing the impact of the court’s ruling.”
But there is a push from gun rights groups and Republican lawmakers to get the DOJ to permanently apply this ruling nationwide.
In a statement, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives said the agency is still “processing forms and will continue to process forms consistent with applicable law, regulations, and agency policy.”
Like the Gun Owners of America, ATF says, “Anyone who has questions about how a court ruling may affect their particular circumstances should consult with their attorney for legal advice.”
Despite the confusion, Pratt, with Gun Owners of America, says he still views this case as a major victory.
“In the end, freedom is advancing. We’re slowly dismantling the regulatory shackles that have bound gun owners for generations,” he said. “Each victory builds upon the last one.”
