Gun Control

A Federal Judge Rejects National Firearms Act Regulations, Saying Their Tax Rationale No Longer Applies

When Congress eliminated taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns, it also eliminated the constitutional justification for regulating them.

Jacob Sullum | 8.6.2026 1:15 PM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google

Media Contact & Reprint Requests

(Adani Samat/Envato/Midjourney)

When Congress approved the National Firearms Act (NFA) in 1934, it framed the law as a tax measure, justifying its regulations as tools to facilitate the generation of revenue. That choice matters, a federal judge in Texas ruled on Wednesday, because several NFA provisions no longer serve that function. When Congress eliminated the federal taxes on making and transferring sound suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns in 2025, U.S. District Judge James Hendrix concluded, it also eliminated the constitutional basis for the ancillary rules governing those activities.

Since the decision in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF bars enforcement of the challenged firearm regulations against the plaintiffs, it might look like a victory for gun rights. But it does not hinge on the Second Amendment, and it upholds a broader principle: The federal government's powers are limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, and congressional legislation must be authorized by one of those powers.

"Because today's NFA does not generate any revenue from untaxed firearms, its regulatory provisions cannot be upheld under the taxing power," Hendrix writes. "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 decision addresses consolidated lawsuits by two sets of plaintiffs, including gun owners, businesses, gun rights groups, and 15 states. Although the plaintiffs also argued........

© Reason.com