The National Firearms Act (NFA) is a federal law from 1934 that puts extra rules on certain weapons the government thought were especially dangerous. Instead of banning them, it requires owners to register them, pass background checks, and pay a special tax. The law mostly covers things like machine guns, short‑barreled rifles or shotguns, and suppressors—not regular hunting or sporting guns. The goal is to make these weapons harder to misuse while still allowing legal ownership under strict rules.

If someone today wants to legally own an NFA‑regulated firearm, they must go through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). That process includes filling out paperwork, submitting fingerprints, passing a background check, paying the required tax, and waiting for approval. Owning one of these weapons without registering it is a serious federal crime.

The tax associated with registering NFA-regulated suppressors and short-barreled rifles, which used to be $200, was reduced to $0 after the passing of the One Big Beautiful Bill, effective January 1, 2026. Everything else about the NFA stayed the same: the NFA weapons are still federally regulated, must be registered, and still require ATF approval, background checks, fingerprints, and paperwork. In short, the law removed the cost, but not the process or regulation, of owning most NFA items.

As a result of the OBBB reducing the tax to $0, many gun rights advocates and individuals have sued the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco (ATF) to remove the registration requirements for suppressors and short-barreled rifles, since Congress’ ability to regulate firearms under the NFA stems from its taxing authority. Since the tax has been eliminated, the plaintiffs argue that other elements of the NFA requiring registration and approval are now moot. The DOJ and ATF have been aggressively fighting these cases in the courts.

Active (ongoing) cases challenging the NFA

1) Brown v. ATF — E.D. Missouri (District Court)

Docket: 4:25-cv-01162 • Filed: Aug 1, 2025 • Status: Active

Who’s suing / what’s targeted:
The case as an effort to remove the regulatory requirements of the NFA by removing silencers and short‑barreled rifles from NFA coverage, arguing the NFA’s justification as a tax law breaks down when the relevant tax is reduced to zero. The Firearms Policy Coalition similarly frames it as a challenge on two grounds: (1) it exceeds Congress’s Article I enumerated powers, and (2) it violates the Second Amendment.

Core legal theory (as stated by the plaintiffs’ allied sources):

• The NFA historically relied on taxing power justification; after the new law reduced the tax on certain NFA items to $0, plaintiffs argue the continued registration regime can’t be justified as a tax measure.
• They also argue the registration regime for suppressors/SBRs violates the Second Amendment.

What the government is arguing (per NRA-ILA’s summary of DOJ filings):
DOJ has defended the NFA’s registration requirement for suppressors, short‑barreled long guns, and “any other weapons,” arguing registration remains valid under taxing power even after the tax elimination, and also invoking the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause; DOJ also argues these items are “particularly dangerous” and “uniquely susceptible to criminal misuse.”

2) Jensen v. ATF — N.D. Texas (District Court)

Docket: 2:25-cv-00223 • Filed: Oct 9, 2025 • Status: Active

Who’s suing / what’s targeted:
This case brought by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and others, again seeks to “further dismantl[e] the NFA” by removing silencers and short‑barreled rifles from the Act.

Core legal theory (from the complaint text and case summaries):

• The complaint describes the NFA as having created a $200 tax plus a registration regime to enforce that tax, and points to Supreme Court language describing the NFA as “only a taxing measure” upheld as “in aid of a revenue purpose” (citing Sonzinsky).
• With taxes set to $0 on certain items but registration left in place, plaintiffs argue the registration requirements have no constitutional basis.

Where it is procedurally:
Court docket sources show it’s an active case in N.D. Texas with filings continuing into Feb 2026.

3) Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF (et al.) — N.D. Texas (District Court)

Docket: 6:25-cv-00056 • Filed: Jul 4, 2025 • Status: Ongoing / Open

Who’s suing / what’s targeted:
This case was filed by the Silencer Shop Foundation and several organizations/companies and an individual, and challenges the NFA’s enforceability after the “One Big Beautiful Bill” zeroed the manufacture/transfer tax on most NFA‑regulated firearms while leaving registration requirements intact.

Notable Idaho connection:
A docket listing shows the State of Idaho among the plaintiff states in this case (along with multiple other states).

Core legal theory (from case summaries and the complaint excerpt):

• Plaintiffs allege the NFA exceeds Article I authority and seek declaratory/injunctive relief against enforcing registration and transfer requirements after the tax was zeroed.
• A complaint excerpt (hosted by GOA) states the new law “set the … tax … to nearly all NFA‑regulated firearms,” leaving registration requirements for many items “now [lacking] any accompanying exercise of Congress’s taxing power,” and includes privacy-related objections to the federal government collecting identifying information about personally owned firearms.