U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix gave Washington a lesson it should've learned in civics class: Congress may use powers the Constitution grants, not powers an agency finds convenient after its legal excuse disappears.
His ruling exposed how long federal gun control can survive on institutional nerve.
On Aug. 5, Hendrix ruled that key National Firearms Act registration and approval requirements are unconstitutional when applied to firearms Congress no longer taxes.
From the Gun Owners of America site:
Gun Owners of America (GOA) and fellow plaintiffs scored a major win today. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that key National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) restrictions are unconstitutional for untaxed firearms and permanently blocked the ATF from enforcing them against the plaintiffs, their members, and their customers.
The lawsuit was brought by GOA, Gun Owners Foundation, Silencer Shop Foundation, Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo, B&T USA, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, individual plaintiff Brady Wetz, and a coalition of 15 pro-gun states: Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Judge James Wesley Hendrix held that Congress wiped out the constitutional basis for federal gun registration when it zeroed the transfer and making taxes on NFA items in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025. The court rejected the government’s attempt to save the regulations under the Commerce Clause.
“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.” — Judge James Wesley Hendrix
The injunction stops the ATF from enforcing federal gun registration requirements, Form 1 and Form 4 applications, fingerprinting, and photography mandates against the protected parties. The court stayed the order for seven days so the Department of Justice can seek appellate review if it chooses to do so.
The decision hits federal controls on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and certain other firearms now carrying a $0 making and transfer tax.
The NFA began in 1934 as a tax law. Its $200 levy was meant to choke off ownership of selected firearms, while registration, fingerprints, photographs, records, and advance federal approval helped collect and enforce the tax.
From the ATF:
he NFA was originally enacted in 1934. Similar to the current NFA, the original Act imposed a tax on the making and transfer of firearms defined by the Act, as well as a special (occupational) tax on persons and entities engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing, and dealing in NFA firearms. The law also required the registration of all NFA firearms with the Secretary of the Treasury. Firearms subject to the 1934 Act included shotguns and rifles having barrels less than 18 inches in length, certain firearms described as “any other weapons,” machine guns, and firearm mufflers and silencers.
While the NFA was enacted by Congress as an exercise of its authority to tax, the NFA had an underlying purpose unrelated to revenue collection. As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The $200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA firearms were considered quite severe and adequate to carry out Congress’ purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions in these firearms. The $200 tax has not changed since 1934.
As structured in 1934, the NFA imposed a duty on persons transferring NFA firearms, as well as mere possessors of unregistered firearms, to register them with the Secretary of the Treasury. If the possessor of an unregistered firearm applied to register the firearm as required by the NFA, the Treasury Department could supply information to State authorities about the registrant’s possession of the firearm. State authorities could then use the information to prosecute the person whose possession violated State laws. For these reasons, the Supreme Court in 1968 held in the Haynes case that a person prosecuted for possessing an unregistered NFA firearm had a valid defense to the prosecution — the registration requirement imposed on the possessor of an unregistered firearm violated the possessor’s privilege from self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Haynes decision made the 1934 Act virtually unenforceable.
President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025, and the tax fell to $0 on Jan. 1, 2026, for every NFA category except machine guns and destructive devices.
Effective January 1, 2026, P.L. 119-21, commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, will set a $0 tax rate for the making or transfer of all NFA firearms that are not machineguns or destructive devices. P.L. 119-21 does not address other NFA requirements, including the special occupational tax or the registration of covered firearms.
NFA Requirements
Per 26 U.S.C. §5845, the NFA covers the following weapons:
- a weapon made from a shotgun if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length;
- a rifle with a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
- a weapon made from a rifle if such weapon as modified has an overall length of less than 26 inches or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length;
- "any other weapon," defined to include, among other weapons, one that is "capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive";
- a "machinegun," defined as "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger," along with the frame or receiver of such weapon or a combination of parts from which a machinegun may be assembled or that are intended for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun;
- a "silencer," as defined in 18 U.S.C. §921 to include "any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm," including combinations of parts intended for use in assembling said device; and
- a "destructive device," defined to include bombs, grenades, rockets, mines, and other listed items.
Even prior to enactment of P.L. 119-21, some transactions were exempted from NFA tax requirements, including making or transferring firearms for government use.
Washington's position was a bureaucratic masterpiece. The tax could vanish, but the registry, permission slips, personal data, waiting period, and threat of felony prosecution should somehow live forever.
Apparently, the federal government believes dead taxes leave immortal paperwork.
Hendrix rejected the trick. The provisions were enacted under Congress's taxing power, and a tax producing no revenue can't support regulations designed to collect it.
The Justice Department also tried to rescue the scheme through the Commerce Clause, but the judge found Congress never invoked that power for these provisions.
Agencies don't get to rewrite congressional authority after losing in court.
The ruling rests on Article I, not directly on the Second Amendment. Hendrix didn't decide the plaintiff's Second Amendment claims because the Article I decision gave them the same practical relief.
For gun owners, the result is still enormous: the federal government may not demand registration and prior approval merely because it has done so for nearly 90 years.
Tom Knighton, writing at our sister site Bearing Arms, puts this decision in perspective:
On Wednesday, a court ruled that continued requirements for the registration of suppressors and short-barreled long guns were unconstitutional. This is a huge win since, well, the registration was only supposed to be about who paid the tax and who didn't. To say this was a point of contention with the Trump administration is putting it mildly.
And it's an important victory, though an incomplete one.
Still, gun rights groups are thrilled. Especially the Second Amendment Foundation, which was a plaintiff in a couple of similar cases.
From a press release:
“The basis for each lawsuit challenging the NFA registration scheme is the same – without the tax, the remaining requirements for the affected arms under the NFA have no constitutional basis,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “And today the first court to rule on the issue has agreed with us. We’re eager to continue this fight and leave major portions of the NFA in the dustbin of history. A big win is a great way to kick things off.”
SAF itself is a named plaintiff in NFA lawsuit Brown v. ATF and is backing two additional challenges – Roberts v. ATF and this case, Jensen v. ATF. Plaintiffs in Jensen are SAF sister organization – Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom and three individuals.
“The removal of the $200 tax in the One Big Beautiful Bill offers the best opportunity to remove the NFA registration requirements that we’ve had in almost a century,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We are thrilled the court ruled in our favor and look forward to other jurisdictions following suit in our remaining NFA cases. This ruling will set a precedent we can now argue in courts across the country to allow Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights without fear of being placed on some government registry.”
The injunction isn't universal, and Hendrix stayed it for seven days to allow an appeal. It protects the plaintiffs, 15 participating states and their agencies, organization members, and current and future customers in transactions with covered businesses.
Gun Owners of America members are among those protected, giving the decision reach far beyond the named individuals standing in the courtroom.
Other NFA challenges now have a detailed 66-page ruling showing why the government's zero-tax registry fails. A district court opinion doesn't bind every judge in America, but it gives future plaintiffs a powerful argument and forces Washington to defend a regulatory structure whose constitutional foundation has been removed.
For decades, Washington treated gun owners as applicants asking for a privilege instead of people exercising a right. Hendrix reminded the government that habit isn't constitutional authority.
When Congress removes the tax, the ATF doesn't get to keep the entire regime simply because surrendering power might spoil the agency's afternoon.
The Second Amendment still faces plenty of court fights, but gun owners won a major one here. The Constitution spoke before the ATF could finish saying
"Because we said so."
Help us keep fighting bureaucrats who believe constitutional rights require federal permission slips. Join PJ Media VIP today and save 60% with promo code FIGHT. Supporting independent conservative journalism has rarely been easier, or more necessary.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member