NFA Injunction Takes Effect, Now ATF Owes Gun Owners Answers
The federal government’s seven-day reprieve in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF has expired. The permanent injunction against enforcement of major portions of the National Firearms Act is now in effect for the covered plaintiffs, members, and customers.
Now the plaintiffs want the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Department of Justice to explain how they intend to obey the court’s order.
In an August 13 letter, attorney Peter Patterson of Cooper & Kirk asked DOJ for guidance on what the injunction means for gun owners, manufacturers, dealers, organizational members, and customers covered by the judgment. The plaintiffs requested a response by August 21.
The NFA’s Taxing-Power Foundation Collapsed
The letter follows U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix’s August 5 ruling that the challenged NFA registration and approval provisions exceed Congress’s enumerated powers when applied to firearms whose making and transfer taxes Congress reduced to zero.
Congress originally enacted the NFA as a tax measure. For nearly a century, Washington used that taxing power to impose registration, fingerprints, advance approval, and criminal penalties on Americans possessing suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns. But a tax that collects no revenue is not much of a tax.
Once Congress zeroed out the making and transfer taxes on those firearms, the claimed constitutional foundation for the accompanying regulatory system collapsed. DOJ attempted to salvage the scheme by pointing to the Commerce Clause and the remaining occupational tax on NFA manufacturers and dealers. Judge Hendrix rejected those arguments.
Congress cannot pass a law under one enumerated power, eliminate the basis for that power, and then ask a court to rewrite history by assigning the law a different constitutional foundation. If Congress wants to enact a new law under its commerce authority, it must do so itself and remain within the Constitution’s limits.
The court permanently enjoined ATF and DOJ from enforcing the challenged NFA provisions against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their members and customers, both current and future. The ruling reaches covered people nationwide, but it is not a universal injunction protecting everyone.
Five Questions ATF Must Answer
That distinction is precisely why ATF guidance is needed. The plaintiffs asked whether ATF will issue instructions to regulated businesses and individuals, when those instructions will arrive, and whether the government intends to keep enforcing the same provisions against people who fall outside the injunction.
They also asked how ATF will distinguish between covered and uncovered individuals across the country. Dealers cannot be expected to guess which memberships, customer relationships, transactions, or records satisfy the court’s order while federal felony penalties remain in the background.
The most consequential question concerns what happens if DOJ later obtains a stay or reversal. The plaintiffs want to know how the government would treat NFA firearms legally made or transferred while the injunction was operating.
Would those firearms be grandfathered? Would ATF demand retroactive registration? Would owners receive a compliance period? Or would the government attempt to turn today’s lawful conduct into tomorrow’s criminal liability?
Gun owners deserve answers before acting, not after federal agents arrive.
The ruling does not mean the entire NFA has vanished. It does not automatically nullify state restrictions, the NFA occupational-tax system, or separate federal provisions governing certain dealer transfers and interstate transportation. The judgment also treats “any other weapons” differently between the two consolidated plaintiff groups because the Jensen plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the AOW provisions.
Those limitations do not diminish the magnitude of the victory. A federal court has held that Washington cannot maintain a registration and criminal-enforcement system untethered from any enumerated constitutional power.
The government had seven days to seek immediate appellate relief. It did not. The injunction is now effective, and DOJ still has time to appeal, but ATF cannot leave covered gun owners and businesses navigating a criminal statute through rumors, social-media posts, and bureaucratic silence.
The court has ruled. The stay has expired. It is time for ATF to explain how it plans to comply.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.