Now that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act has eliminated ridiculous taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and other arms listed under the National Firearms Act (NFA), gun rights groups are seeking to have the legislation struck down completely.
If you’re like me, you already love where this is going.
A coalition of plaintiffs, including the NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition, a Missouri firearms store, and several Missouri residents, are challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA).
Now that the tax has been sent to Hades, the legislation’s regulatory and registration requirements are left standing. The lawsuit argues that since “Congress passed the NFA explicitly premised on its enumerated power to ‘lay and collect Taxes,’” the tax’s removal means the NFA has no valid constitutional basis for imposing regulations.
The plaintiffs argue that the NFA violates both Article I of the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Enforcing the NFA “exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers” because it empowers the state to regulate activity that is no longer taxed and has no interstate commerce connection.
Recommended
“The NFA applies to all covered firearms regardless of whether they traveled in interstate commerce,” the complaint notes.
The lawsuit lays out a comprehensive argument that the NFA’s restrictions violate the Second Amendment because they do not adhere to the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The ruling mandates that any gun control laws must be similar to regulations enacted during the Founding era.
One Big Beautiful Bill Act opens door to ending some gun controls
— Paul Bedard (@SecretsBedard) August 6, 2025
“This was a big opening for us,” Doug Hamlin, CEO and EVP of the @NRA
New lawsuit with other 2A groups signals start of 3-5 year court fight.https://t.co/YuYbgn0U8a via @dcexaminer pic.twitter.com/4gtFRGF0GU
The plaintiffs further insisted that suppressors and short-barreled rifles are not only commonly used, but are not dangerous. “Suppressors have many common, legal uses,” the complaint reads. “Firearm suppressors are commonly used for lawful purposes and very infrequently used for criminal activity.”
Since there is no historical Founding era tradition of registering firearms for private ownership, the plaintiffs contend that “the NFA’s registration scheme as pertains to suppressors and short-barreled rifles is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.”
The registration process mandated under the NFA is comparable to being treated like a criminal, the lawsuit alleges. “Individual Plaintiffs object to this burdensome registration requirement, which forces them to provide information to the federal government similar to that obtained from an individual arrested and charged with a crime,” according to the complaint.
The plaintiffs note that registering these items “will impose a time burden” with some approvals taking up to ten months to process.
If the court takes the Bruen ruling seriously, there is no way the NFA will remain after the proceedings are concluded. Colonial governments during the Founding era did enact certain regulations on firearms. But they were mostly applied to those serving in militias. The closest historical analogue that the state could use in its argument would be how some governments tracked certain arms. But again, this tracking applied only to militias, not private gun owners.
This is why I love the Bruen decision. The Supreme Court made the list of allowable gun control laws so narrow that the vast majority of legislation restricting gun ownership would not be considered constitutional. If and when the NFA is struck down, it will grant even more liberty to those who value their Second Amendment rights.
