Texas Court Blocks NFA Registration Rules for Untaxed Firearms

Published: August 7, 2026 at 8:10 AM MST

Editorial illustration created for Gun Place. Not documentary photography.

Updated August 7, 2026: A federal judge in Texas has ruled that key National Firearms Act registration requirements cannot constitutionally be enforced against the plaintiffs for firearms whose federal making and transfer tax is now zero. The injunction is limited, however, and the court stayed its order for seven days, so it does not create an immediate nationwide change in NFA compliance.

U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas issued the 66-page decision on August 5 in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, consolidated with Jensen v. ATF. The court concluded that the challenged registration, application, and related provisions exceeded Congress’s enumerated powers as applied to suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and certain other weapons after Congress reduced their NFA making and transfer taxes to $0.

The court’s order is consequential, but it is also easy to overread. The judge refused to issue a universal injunction and paused the ruling to give the federal government time to seek appellate relief. For now, firearm owners, dealers, and manufacturers should continue following all applicable federal, state, and local requirements unless they receive authoritative guidance that specifically applies to them.

What the NFA registration ruling decided

The National Firearms Act has long required covered firearms to be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. It also requires federal approval before many covered firearms may be made or transferred. Those requirements historically operated alongside NFA taxes.

Congress changed that structure through Public Law 119-21. Effective January 1, 2026, the law set the making and transfer taxes at $0 for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and the category called “any other weapon,” or AOW. Machineguns and destructive devices remained subject to the $200 tax, while separate occupational taxes on certain businesses also remained. The enacted law is available through the Government Publishing Office.

ATF then amended its regulations to reflect the zero-dollar rate while keeping the existing approval and registration process. In its May 2026 rule, the agency said the changes did not alter the other requirements for lawful making or transfer. The Federal Register notice explains that implementation.

Judge Hendrix reached a different conclusion about Congress’s constitutional authority to retain those requirements. He reasoned that the challenged provisions had been sustained as measures supporting the collection of a tax. With no revenue generated by the making and transfer taxes on the four affected categories, the court found that connection no longer sufficient. The opinion also rejected the government’s effort to support the same provisions through the occupational-tax regime or the Commerce Clause.

The court did not decide the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims. At the parties’ urging, it resolved the case on Congress’s Article I powers and said the injunction provided no less relief than the plaintiffs would have received on the alternative constitutional theory.

Who the injunction covers – and who it does not

The most important limitation is the remedy. Citing the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision restricting universal injunctions, Judge Hendrix declined to bar enforcement for everyone nationwide.

Instead, the permanent injunction protects the named plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members, and current or future customers. Customer protection is tied to transactions with the commercial plaintiffs or commercial members of plaintiff associations; the order expressly says it does not excuse those customers from NFA requirements for every covered firearm they may otherwise possess, make, transfer, or sell.

The court also declined to extend relief to loosely defined “supporters” or resident family members. The Jensen plaintiffs did not establish standing to challenge the NFA’s treatment of AOWs, so their relief does not reach that category. The broader Silencer Shop plaintiff group obtained relief concerning AOWs within the limits of the injunction.

That makes eligibility fact-specific. A social-media post, membership purchase, or customer relationship should not be treated as proof that a person is covered. The Second Amendment Foundation’s case page identifies the consolidated litigation and participating organizations, but the court’s final order controls the scope of relief.

The seven-day stay means no immediate change

The court stayed the effect of its August 5 order for seven days so federal defendants could seek relief at the appellate level. That means the injunction is not presently operative. A notice of appeal, an appellate stay, or a later order could change the timing or practical effect before the seven-day period expires.

Gun Place has recently tracked how the $0 tax and high application volume affected ATF Form 4 processing times. This ruling goes much further than the tax change alone, but only if and when its injunction takes effect for a covered party or transaction.

Until then, applicants should not cancel pending forms, take possession without approval, or assume that federal registration has ended. State law may independently regulate suppressors, short-barreled rifles, or short-barreled shotguns, and the federal Gun Control Act still applies even where an NFA provision is enjoined. Retailers also remain responsible for ordinary federal licensing, transfer, background-check, recordkeeping, and state-law obligations.

What happens next

The federal government can ask Judge Hendrix or the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to keep the injunction on hold during an appeal. Other NFA challenges are also pending in federal courts, so the legal landscape could develop differently across jurisdictions.

The ruling is nevertheless significant because it squarely addresses the constitutional consequence of Congress setting the relevant NFA taxes at zero. It also illustrates how the Supreme Court’s limits on universal injunctions can produce a broad legal holding but a narrower practical remedy.

Gun Place will monitor the docket, any appeal, and ATF guidance. Readers can follow continuing developments in our Legal & Regulatory coverage.

This article is for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. Firearm laws and court orders can change quickly, and their application depends on specific facts and jurisdictions. Consult qualified counsel or the relevant authorities before acting.

Sources

• U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Memorandum Opinion and Order, Aug. 5, 2026
• Public Law 119-21, Government Publishing Office
• ATF technical amendments implementing the $0 NFA tax rate, Federal Register, May 8, 2026
• Second Amendment Foundation case page for Jensen v. ATF

Gun Place newsroom policies: Editorial Policy · Corrections · Ownership & Funding · Editorial contact.