Several NFA provisions have been ruled unconstitutional by a North Texas US District Court. A $0 tax is no tax therefore the powers and provisions provided by it being a tax are not there.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANGELO DIVISION
Article I of the Constitution gives Congress certain enumerated powers. Among those powers is the authority to “lay and collect Taxes.” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8. cl. 1. In 1934, Congress invoked its taxing power to enact the National Firearms Act—a scheme to constrict the market for certain classes of firearms. As passed, the NFA required individuals to pay a tax before transferring or making a covered firearm. And it included burdensome regulatory provisions to aid the collection and enforcement of those taxes. At that time, the NFA possessed the key feature of any tax: It produced some revenue for the government.
Advertisement — Continue Reading Below
But that is no longer true. In 2025, Congress eliminated the NFA’s transfer and making taxes for four categories of firearms: short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and a final, defined group of miscellaneous firearms. Because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from untaxed firearms, its regulatory provisions cannot be upheld under the taxing power. And there is no sign in the NFA’s text, structure, or statutory history that Congress invoked any other power in crafting the NFA provisions at issue. Thus, the regulatory provisions must be enjoined as unconstitutional because they exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.
The plaintiffs are a coalition of individuals, businesses, associations, and states.What began as one case is now two: Recently, another judge in this district transferred a related action, Jensen v. ATF, No. 6:26-CV-227, to this Court. The Court consolidated Jensen with the lead case, Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, No. 6:25-CV-056, and set both cases for decision on cross-motions for summary judgment. See Dkt. Nos. 48; 59; 117; 118. With the NFA’s taxes now eliminated, each set of plaintiffs alleges that the NFA’s regulatory provisions for untaxed firearms exceed Congress’s Article I enumerated powers. They also claim that those same NFA provisions infringe the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear Arms.”
The Court agrees on the first point and need not reach the second. 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. See Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506 (1937). And because Congress enacted the challenged NFA provisions under the Taxing Clause only, the NFA cannot be retroactively justified under another power that Congress never invoked, such as its authority to regulate interstate commerce. See U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. Thus, the challenged NFA provisions exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.
Advertisement — Continue Reading Below
With that understanding, the Court accepts the plaintiffs’ invitation—offered at the motions hearing—to forgo adjudication of their Second Amendment claims. The Court does not decide constitutional questions unnecessarily, especially when the plaintiffs will receive no less relief than they would get for prevailing under the Second Amendment.
Remedy-wise, the plaintiffs in both cases are entitled to a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the challenged NFA provisions against them, their members, and their customers. But that is as far as it goes. Federal courts lack power to issue universal injunctions that provide relief to parties not before the Court. See Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025). The Court’s remedy is limited in other respects, too. The Jensen plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge the NFA’s regulation of “any other weapon”—the final, defined group of miscellaneous firearms—because they did not establish as much from the start of the case. The Court also declines to issue the requested declaratory judgments because they would provide no further relief. But to be clear: The challenged NFA provisions are unconstitutional. Congress’s choice to eliminate the transfer and making taxes matters, and the defendants cannot save the NFA’s regulatory scheme by referring to a power that Congress never invoked. Efforts to render the NFA constitutional must come from Congress, not this Court.
- Background
A. Legal Framework
i. The National Firearms Act
Read the rest of the judgements here.
Advertisement — Continue Reading Below
What comes next?
The NFA has been dealt a substantial blow today.
Remedy-wise, the plaintiffs in both cases are entitled to a permanent injunction barring enforcement of the challenged NFA provisions against them, their members, and their customers. But that is as far as it goes. Federal courts lack power to issue universal injunctions that provide relief to parties not before the Court.
The NFA is not gone.
Advertisement — Continue Reading Below
However, the NFA registration provisions have been given a legal notice of eviction. Congress, again as stated above, and the DoJ are going to be on the hook to formulate a response and take proper actions to bring the NFA into constitutional alignment. Congress is unlikely to do that. An appeal is likely from the DoJ, but the matter could simply be pushed to higher courts for concurrence and nationwide implementation. That would still likely involve decisions and work from the Supreme Court and the DoJ can still defend it.
So no, the NFA is not gone. But we have taken the next logical step on its exit. It is along one of the speculated routes for its removal, that a $0 tax is no tax. I whole heartedly agree.
Advertisement — Continue Reading Below
Read the full article here
