The National Firearms Act was passed in 1934 in response to gangland violence during Prohibition. Violence was already going down, though, because of the end of Prohibition. Still, it restricted a whole lot of things to some degree or another.
Now, a lawsuit seeks to challenge its constitutionality.
Among the things restricted are suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and machine guns. While the first two don't require a tax stamp anymore after the passage of the One Big, Beautiful Bill, machine guns were untouched, and all three require registration by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which makes no sense considering the registration was just about who paid the tax.
But a number of gun rights groups have joined forces to try to change at least some of that.
From a press release sent by the Second Amendment Foundation:
Recommended
Today, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), American Suppressor Association (ASA), National Rifle Association (NRA), Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two members of the organizations filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The case, Brown v. ATF, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Until President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), the NFA established a $200 tax and tax-enforcement registration regime on certain classes of firearms, including suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and NFA-defined “any other weapons.” With the elimination of this excise tax in the OBBB, the joint complaint alleges that the NFA registration regime is no longer justifiable as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power, nor any other Article I power.
The lawsuit also asserts that the NFA’s registration regime for suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has established that any regulation on arms-bearing conduct must be consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The complaint argues that there is no tradition that supports the NFA’s registration regime for protected arms such as suppressors and short-barreled rifles.
Click here to read the lawsuit.
“The National Firearms Act's registration scheme only exists to ensure that the tax on NFA firearms was paid,” said Adam Kraut, SAF's Executive Director. “With Congress removing the tax on silencers, short-barreled firearms, and ‘any other weapons,’ the continued inclusion of these items in the NFA serves no purpose, except continuing to retain an impermissible hurdle to the exercise of one’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We look forward to relegating this unconstitutional law to the history books.”
“The National Firearms Act has been a weight around the neck of law-abiding gun owners for nearly a century,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director American Suppressor Association. “With the elimination of the excise tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs through the One Big Beautiful Bill, our lawsuit challenges the NFA as an unconstitutional registry of now untaxed firearms. Common sense and the law are on our side, and we look forward to fighting on behalf of all Americans in Federal Court.”
“The National Firearms Act has infringed on law-abiding Americans’ right to keep and bear arms for nearly a century,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action. “Congress took a major step by eliminating the NFA tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms through the OBBB, and we’re proud to work alongside other leading Second Amendment organizations to finish the job.”
“The National Firearms Act isn’t just unconstitutional, it’s a tyrannical abomination,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs. “Not only does the NFA violate your Second Amendment rights, but Congress never had the lawful authority to pass it in the first place. That makes it a double abuse of power, violating both the right to keep and bear arms and the hard limits the Constitution places on the federal government. We’re proud to fight alongside our allies to end this corrupt, immoral law so peaceable Americans can exercise their rights when, where, and how they choose.”
Unfortunately, this doesn't seek to change anything regarding machine guns, but it's still an important challenge.
As noted, the registration was originally just about who paid the taxes and who hadn't. The NFA was defended for years as falling under Congress's authority to levy taxes, not as gun control.
Yet, if the tax is gone, then why is there a registration and licensing process at all that needs to be undertaken before someone can take possession of these devices? It makes absolutely no sense at all, especially in light of the decision in NYSRP v. Bruen regarding the history, text, and tradition test for gun control laws. I can't think of anything that was covered similarly to how these devices – not all are firearms, after all – are treated.
And let's be real here, it's never been difficult to break these laws.
A shotgun and a hacksaw can create an illegal firearm under the NFA. An AR pistol upper receiver can easily be slapped on a rifle lower, and the upper isn't restricted in the least, either. The whole "any other weapon" thing can be anything as stupid as putting a forward grip on your handgun's accessory rail just because you think it looks dumb.
Each of these is an easy way to skirt the law, and where the prohibition and registration are nothing but barriers for the law-abiding.
Here's hoping the judicial system gets this one right.
