LUBBOCK, Texas, Aug. 15 (Our Texas Times) — A federal judge in Texas has ruled that several National Firearms Act requirements are unconstitutional, allowing certain gun owners and groups covered by the order to acquire suppressors and other regulated firearms without completing the law’s registration process.
The ruling took effect Aug. 13 after the U.S. Department of Justice did not ask for an emergency stay during a seven-day period set by U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix. The department could still pursue a regular appeal, and the order does not apply nationwide.
The decision has become a major legal and political victory for gun-rights groups. It also has created uncertainty over which people, businesses and government agencies may rely on it while any appeal is considered.
What did the judge strike down?
The case involved parts of the National Firearms Act, or NFA, a 1934 law that regulates suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and certain other firearms.
The law required people making or transferring covered firearms to pay a tax and register the transaction with the federal government. For decades, the tax was $200. The registration requirement also involved additional federal review beyond the standard background check used for many firearm purchases.
Congress later eliminated the tax on the affected items through legislation signed by President Donald Trump. Hendrix concluded that, once the tax was removed, the challenged rules could no longer be supported by Congress’ constitutional power to tax.
“The challenged NFA provisions are unconstitutional,” Hendrix wrote in his Aug. 5 order. He also wrote that the provisions could no longer be justified under Congress’ taxing power and that any effort to revise the law must come from Congress rather than the court.
Who is covered by the order?
The ruling is not a nationwide injunction. Instead, it blocks federal officials from enforcing the challenged registration and related requirements against the plaintiffs and specified people and organizations connected to them, including certain customers or members.
Hendrix’s order also covers state agencies and political subdivisions in 15 states that joined the lawsuit. The publicly described materials do not provide a complete list of the covered people, businesses, agencies or customers.
That limited scope is important. The ruling does not automatically allow every gun owner in Texas or elsewhere to skip NFA registration. Businesses and purchasers outside the order’s coverage may still face the federal requirements, and the exact reach of the order could be tested in future court proceedings.
What happened in Leander?
Gun Owners of America said two people completed suppressor purchases shortly after the order took effect at Silencer Shop, a federally licensed firearms dealer in Leander, Texas.
The group identified the purchasers as Brandon Herrera and Texas state Rep. Wes Virdell, a Republican from Brady. GOA said they did not complete NFA registration before receiving the suppressors.
GOA described the purchases as the first lawful transfers without NFA registration since the law was enacted in 1934. That historical claim has not been independently established in the information available for this report.
Aidan Johnston, GOA’s federal affairs director, called the transactions a historic first. Erich Pratt, another GOA official, said members were putting the ruling “into action” and argued that federal registration for constitutionally protected arms should end.
Federal background checks still apply under the legal framework described by the court and the parties. The ruling concerns the NFA registration and related requirements; it does not eliminate the broader background-check system for firearm sales.
Why did the Justice Department not stop the ruling immediately?
Hendrix delayed the ruling’s effect for seven days so the federal government could seek emergency relief. The Justice Department did not file an emergency appeal or request a stay during that period.
A Justice Department spokesperson said the department was assessing the ruling’s impact and respected Americans’ Second Amendment rights. The department has not, in the supplied statements, said that it has abandoned the possibility of a later appeal.
The remaining time for a regular appeal is described differently in the available accounts. The controlling appellate deadline and any later filings would determine whether the ruling is challenged in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
How are the sides describing the decision?
Gun-rights organizations, including GOA, the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation, have portrayed the ruling as a significant expansion of Second Amendment rights. U.S. Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Republican from Georgia, called it “a monumental day” for the country and the Second Amendment.
Groups that support stricter gun laws have criticized the decision. Emma Brown of Giffords said the government’s decision not to seek immediate relief was “a failure to defend public safety.”
Those competing reactions reflect the broader legal question: whether the federal government can continue using the NFA’s registration system after the tax that once supported the law was eliminated. Hendrix answered that question in favor of the challengers, but the decision’s final effect will depend on its precise coverage and whether the Justice Department appeals.
