A large part of the National Firearms Act is now unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, in a decision that could erase registration requirements for sales or transfer of silencers and short-barreled long guns.
Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee to the bench in Texas, said when Congress zeroed out a tax on those weapons and accessories last year, it erased the constitutional underpinnings for the paperwork and registration requirements that were part of the 1934 gun law.
Lawmakers said they needed the registrations to carry out the tax. But Judge Hendrix said no tax means no more registration.
Thus, the regulatory provisions must be enjoined as unconstitutional because they exceed Congress’s enumerated powers, the judge wrote.
He limited his ruling to the plaintiffs in two cases before him, and to their members and customers. But the plaintiffs include major gun-rights groups, whose membership includes millions of gun owners and some firearms manufacturers, retailers and importers.
Fifteen GOP-led states were also plaintiffs, and their agencies and subdivisions would also get relief from the registration requirements.
Judge Hendrix put a seven-day hold on his ruling taking effect, to allow time for an appeal.
The ruling also doesn’t apply to machine guns, which are regulated by later firearms law such as the Gun Control Act.
Congress cited its commerce powers in justifying that law, so it is on firmer legal footing than the 1934 National Firearms Act.
Challengers filed the case on July 4 last year — the very day President Trump signed his Big Beautiful Bill budget act into law.
One provision in that law eliminated the transfer and manufacture tax on silencers, short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles and some other concealable weapons.
That tax had been tied to a lengthy registration process that required anyone transferring a gun covered under the law to provide fingerprints, date of birth and specific descriptions of the gun being transferred.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives then rules on whether the transfer can commence.
Wednesday’s decision drew praise from Second Amendment groups.
“This is a massive win and an important step forward in our strategic plan to end the NFA. We cannot wait to fully and finally eliminate this unconstitutional scheme so people can exercise their rights when, where, and how they choose,” said Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, which had been part of one of two lawsuits consolidated in Judge Hendrix’s courtroom.
Giffords Law Center, which backs gun-control measures, called the ruling “a dangerous step backward for public safety.”
“Silencers make it harder for law enforcement to detect and locate active shooters. And short-barreled rifles and shotguns are easily concealable and extremely dangerous,” said Adam Skaggs, vice president at Giffords.
The challengers had also raised broader Second Amendment challenges arguing the 1934 law conflicted with the right to bear arms.
The judge said he didn’t need to decide those matters in this ruling.
The 15 states that were plaintiffs in the lawsuit were: Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Contact the author
Please read our comment policy before commenting.