[See Full Court Ruling]
A Texas ruling on August 5, 2026, finds
that Congress removed the constitutional foundation for federal
registration and approval rules covering suppressors and short-barreled
firearms thus striking down the requirement that individuals register
the transfers of those firearms with the ATF. But, not in Tennessee.
Congress
enacted the National Firearms Act, or NFA, in 1934 under its
constitutional power to tax. For most of the law’s history, a person who
transferred or privately made a NFA firearm had to pay a $200 federal
tax. The NFA uses “firearm” as a uniquely defined legal term that
includes suppressors, called “silencers” in federal law, short-barreled
rifles, short-barreled shotguns, machineguns, destructive devices, and a
narrow group called “any other weapons,” or AOWs.
The tax came with an extensive federal
system for registration of those items. A transfer generally required an
ATF Form 4, while private making required a Form 1. The applications
required identifying information, fingerprints, a photograph, details
about the item, and historically a written notice to local law
enforcement. ATF approval had to come first prior to the physical
transfer and, in the past, that often took far more than a year for the
ATF to respond. The NFA’s procedures also required entry in a central
registry, proof of registration, and related marking and recordkeeping.
Violations could bring serious criminal penalties and forfeiture.
In 2025, Congress removed the tax but left
the federal requirements that the transfer forms be submitted and
approved by ATF. Congress changed the transfer and making tax to $0
for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and
AOWs, effective January 1, 2026. Congress kept the $200 tax for
machineguns and destructive devices. It also kept the annual
occupational tax on NFA importers, manufacturers, and dealers.
Congress did not remove the application,
approval, disclosure, registration, and enforcement provisions tied to
those items that were no longer subject to a tax. That mismatch created
the lawsuit. The plaintiffs argued that this machinery could not stand
when the tax collected no revenue from these items.
The lawsuit was filed in federal district
court in Texas. The lead plaintiffs included individuals, firearms
businesses, membership organizations, and 15 states: Texas, Alaska,
Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and
Wyoming. As in other cases brought by states challenging federal gun
laws for their citizens, Tennessee was not among the states that were
fighting the federal government’s claimed authority over their citizens.
A related case, Jensen v. ATF, was consolidated with the lead case.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs raised two
main claims. First, they argued that the NFA rules exceeded Congress’s
limited powers under Article I of the Constitution. Second, they claimed
that the same rules violated the Second Amendment. The lead plaintiffs
requested a nationwide injunction against enforcement for all untaxed
NFA items, including transactions involving people who were not parties.
They also sought declaratory relief. The Jensen plaintiffs requested a narrower, party-specific injunction.
On August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge
James Wesley Hendrix ruled that the challenged provisions are
unconstitutional as applied to the untaxed categories of firearms. His
reasoning centered on Congress’s enumerated powers, not the Second
Amendment (the parties had agreed that the Court need not reach the
Second Amendment issues if the court ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs on
the first ground).
The court found that Congress enacted the
NFA under the taxing power and designed its forms, registry, approval
process, and penalties to support tax collection. A tax must produce at
least some revenue. Because the rate is now $0 for the items at issue,
the court concluded that those controls no longer aid the collection of a
tax. The remaining occupational tax on businesses was not enough, in
the court’s view, to support regulatory burdens placed on individual
transfers and making.
The federal government also relied on
Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce and the Necessary and
Proper Clause. The court rejected those defenses. It held that the NFA’s
text, structure, and history showed that Congress relied on the taxing
power alone and that the government could not save the law with a
different, after-the-fact constitutional theory. Because this ruling
gave the plaintiffs the requested protection, the court did not decide
the Second Amendment claim. That claim was dismissed without prejudice
as abandoned.
The relief granted by the court is
important, but it is not nationwide. The court barred ATF and the
Justice Department from enforcing the listed provisions against the
plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political
subdivisions, members, and current or future customers. Customer
protection is tied to transactions with a protected commercial plaintiff
or member. It does not give a customer’s entire collection a blanket
exemption. The court also excluded undefined “supporters” and resident
family members.
The judge refused to issue a universal
injunction or a separate declaratory judgment. The court relied on the
Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, which limited
federal courts to relief needed for the parties before them. The order
also does not disturb the tax or related controls on machineguns and
destructive devices, and it does not erase other federal firearm laws.
What does the decision means for Tennessee?
For Tennesseans, caution is essential.
This is a Texas federal district court decision, not a ruling of the
Supreme Court or the Sixth Circuit, where Tennessee is located. It does
not bind Tennessee federal courts as precedent.
Of more
significance, Tennessee is not a plaintiff state, and the injunction is
not universal. Tennessee, its agencies, and its political subdivisions
did not receive the protection granted to the 15 plaintiff states.
Further, Tennesseans did not receive the protections that citizens of
other states received.
Some Tennesseans may still fall within the
injunction if they are members of a protected plaintiff organization or
are current or future customers in a protected transaction. That
coverage depends on the exact relationship and the final judgment. It
should not be assumed.
The timing also matters. The court stayed
its own order for seven days from August 5 so the federal government
could seek appellate relief. As of August 6, no one should act as though
the injunction is already in force. An appeal and a longer stay could
delay or prevent it from taking effect.
What is important to understand is that
Tennessee, its Legislature, its Governor and its Attorney General failed
to stand up for its people.
Tennessee failed its citizens by not
joining this important constitutional challenge. Other states used their
offices and resources to contest a federal system that demanded
personal disclosures, government approval, and registration after
Congress eliminated the underlying tax. Tennessee chose not to stand
with them. Of course, given that Tennessee’s state government and state
officials have appealed the ruling in Hughes v. Lee and that
they have refused for decades to repeal clear violations by state law of
the Second Amendment, it is not surprising that these state officials
made the decision not to protect the constitutionally protected rights
of Tennesseans – again.
That failure has a practical cost.
Tennessee’s agencies and political subdivisions are outside the
state-specific injunction. Tennesseans and Tennessee businesses must
sort through narrower membership and customer rules to determine whether
they are protected against federal enforcement. The court protected
the plaintiff states and their governmental bodies, not all residents of
those states. Tennessee would have needed to establish standing and
seek relief broad enough to protect its citizens. But it did neither. On
an issue involving constitutional limits and serious criminal
penalties, Tennesseans deserved active representation from their State,
not silence from the sidelines – or worse, tacit support for the federal
government’s continued registration requirements.
It is
election day in Tennessee. A step will be made toward selecting a new
governor. It is critical for Tennesseans to make sure that the choices
that they make in this primary are for candidates who have publicly
proven, through their actions, their debates, their public questioning
and their survey responses that they take the Second Amendment as a “no
compromise” right to be fully and completely protected. Our existing
government officials – those who could have included Tennessee in this
litigation failed us. In this election season, make sure you support
only those candidates who leave no question as to where they stand in
the defense of your constitutionally protected rights.
