On August 5, 2026, Judge Wesley Hendrix of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the National Firearms Act’s registration and approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns exceed Congress’s constitutional authority after Congress eliminated the NFA’s transfer and making taxes on those arms.
However, the court’s order was stayed until today, August 12, 2026, and many gun owners are wondering exactly what will happen if that stay expires and the injunction goes into effect as currently written. While some aspects will depend on the government’s discretion, until we have further guidance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, here is what we do know:
The Parties
The injunction is limited in scope to the parties in the case. The case is two separate cases that were consolidated (Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and the NRA-supported case Jensen v. ATF). The distinction is somewhat important because the injunction applies in slightly different ways to the different groups of parties.
The SSF parties are B&T USA, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Palmetto State Armory, Silencerco Weapons Research, Silencer Shop Foundation, the States of Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming, and several individuals.
The Jensen parties are the Texas State Rifle Association (NRA’s Texas affiliate), Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Hot Shots Custom, and several individuals.
The Court’s injunction applies to the parties and “where applicable, the parties’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers—both current and future.” This means that the protections of the injunction generally flow “downstream” in the chain of commerce. In general, this means that it will be important for manufacturers, distributors, and dealers to be a plaintiff or a member of a covered group, but customers of these businesses will likely be covered whether or not they are a member of a covered group.
NRA has partnered with TSRA to provide a joint membership for those interested. That membership is available here.
What Statutes and Regulations Are Enjoined?
The NFA’s registration and approval requirements (26 U.S.C. § 5812(a)–(b); 26 U.S.C. § 5822; 26 U.S.C. § 5841(a)–(c), (e); 26 U.S.C. § 5861(b)–(f); 27 C.F.R. § 479.62(a)–(d); and 27 C.F.R. § 479.84(a)–(d)) are enjoined as to silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns for the covered parties. The injunction also includes “any other weapons” for the SSF parties only.
Certain marking requirements (26 U.S.C. § 5842(b); and 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i)) are enjoined with respect to the Jensen parties only. While the effect of this portion of the injunction will take some clarification from the government, it appears that the government will not be able to enforce the NFA’s marking requirements against Jensen parties’ members and customers who possess firearms covered by the injunction.
Perhaps more important than the statutes covered are those that are not covered by the injunction. 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4) makes it unlawful for a “licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver . . . to any person any . . . short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity . . . .” In the past, compliance with the NFA was considered “authorization” under this section. NRA is currently working pursuing other avenues for the administration to provide this authorization, but without further action by the government, compliance with the former NFA procedures will likely still be required before transferring a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
The analogous requirement for transportation of short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4)) was also not enjoined. Authorization for interstate travel with these firearms is still required. ATF has proposed to streamline this process by regulation.
The injunction also does not apply to the existing Special Occupational Tax regime for dealers in NFA firearms. While it could technically be possible for non-SOT dealers to receive firearms from a distributor or manufacturer on an ATF Form 4, ATF will need to clarify if an SOT is required for dealers who “engage in the business” of dealing in these firearms.
State Laws
Several states require compliance or registration under the NFA as a matter of state law. The injunction does not directly affect those laws but may indirectly impact them. For example, if the NFA no longer requires registration of certain firearms, then a state law requiring compliance with the NFA should not be deemed violated by those otherwise lawfully possessing those firearms without registration.
ATF has not indicated that they will stop processing NFA forms, so prospective purchasers of firearms in these states, could still follow the NFA process to comply with state law.
NRA’s team is currently working with state attorneys general to protect gun owners in these states, and we will continue to monitor and seek to amend these laws.
Moving Forward
The Jensen case is one of three cases supported by NRA and our litigation partners the American Suppressor Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation. The other cases are Brown v. ATF and Roberts v. ATF. On August 10th, Judge Stephen Clark of the Eastern District of Missouri heard our motion for summary judgment in Brown. We remain committed to expanding the injunction secured in the Jensen case in these other cases.
Taking actions under an injunction is not without risk. An injunction can be dissolved or stayed with very little notice. Please check back regularly to www.nraila.org for updates on these cases.
While much remains uncertain with the injunction, the monumental nature of this win cannot be overstated. This is the biggest win against the unconstitutional NFA in its 92-year history, and it serves as a great example that the fight for our rights is never over.
Due to the complexity of these matters, it’s important to note that this is not legal advice and an experienced attorney in your state should be consulted on your particular legal situation.
More Like This From Around The NRA
