LUBBOCK, Texas, Aug. 15 (Our Texas Times) — A federal judge in Texas has ruled that parts of the National Firearms Act are unconstitutional after Congress eliminated the tax that had supported the rules, allowing some gun owners to acquire suppressors and other regulated firearms without completing the federal registration process.
The decision took effect Aug. 13 after the Justice Department did not ask for an emergency stay or appeal within the seven-day period set by U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix. The department could still pursue an appeal during the remaining appellate period, according to court-procedure accounts cited in reports on the case.
The ruling is not a nationwide order. It blocks federal officials from enforcing the challenged requirements against the lawsuit’s plaintiffs and certain associated people, entities, customers and members. It also applies to state agencies and political subdivisions in 15 states that joined the case. The court’s order does not provide a general exemption for every gun owner in the country.
What did the judge strike down?
The National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934, created special rules for certain firearms, including suppressors, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. The law required registration and imposed a $200 tax on the making or transfer of covered weapons.
Congress and President Donald Trump later eliminated that tax through federal legislation referred to in court coverage as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Hendrix concluded that, once the tax was removed, Congress could no longer rely on its taxing power to justify the challenged regulations.
“The challenged NFA provisions are unconstitutional,” Hendrix wrote in his Aug. 5 opinion. He also wrote that “no longer can the challenged NFA provisions be justified — as they have been for nearly 90 years — under Congress’s taxing power.”
Hendrix delayed the ruling’s effect for seven days so the government could seek emergency relief. When that period ended without an emergency filing, the order became operative for the parties and groups covered by its terms.
The judge said any effort to replace or revise the rules must come from Congress rather than the court. The ruling did not eliminate all federal gun requirements. Federal background checks still apply under the process described in the court-related reports.
How gun-rights groups used the ruling
Gun Owners of America said two people completed suppressor purchases at Silencer Shop, a federally licensed dealer in Leander, Texas, shortly after the order took effect. The purchasers were identified as Brandon Herrera and Texas state Rep. Wes Virdell, R-Brady.
The group said the purchases were the first lawful transfers without NFA registration since the law was enacted in 1934. That historical claim has not been independently verified in the available records.
Aidan Johnston, the group’s federal affairs director, said the transfers showed that gun owners were putting the ruling into practice. GOA official Erich Pratt said, “Our members are putting the historic victory into action. The era of federal registration for constitutionally protected arms must end.”
The ruling also drew praise from U.S. Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Ga., who called it “a monumental day for the country and a monumental day for the Second Amendment.”
The Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation also supported the decision, according to statements cited in coverage of the ruling.
Why the Justice Department’s response matters
The Justice Department did not seek an emergency stay before the judge’s deadline. That allowed the ruling to take effect without an immediate challenge from the federal government, although the department’s procedural options may not be exhausted.
A Justice Department spokesperson said the agency was assessing the impact of the decision and that “the Department respects Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”
The department’s decision has created uncertainty about how broadly federal agencies will apply the order and whether the government will later appeal. The available reports do not establish whether a notice of appeal has since been filed or whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has taken action.
The precise list of people, businesses, agencies and customers covered by the order is also not clear from the available public descriptions. The order’s language extends beyond the named plaintiffs but does not make the ruling nationwide.
What happens next?
The Justice Department could appeal the ruling. The case would likely proceed through the Fifth Circuit if an appeal is filed, but the available records do not establish the department’s final decision or the exact remaining deadline.
The dispute could also return to Congress. Hendrix wrote that any effort to make the challenged rules constitutional must come from lawmakers, not the court.
Public-safety groups have criticized the federal government’s decision not to seek immediate emergency relief. Emma Brown of Giffords said the decision was “a failure to defend public safety.”
For now, the ruling’s practical effect depends on whether a person or organization falls within its defined group of plaintiffs, associated parties or participating public entities. It does not, by itself, remove the NFA’s registration requirements for every gun owner in Texas or elsewhere.
