The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) announced Wednesday the filing of a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA), seeking to eliminate registration requirements for certain firearms.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas under case number 2:25-cv-00223, the case — Jensen v. ATF — names the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom, and three individuals as plaintiffs.
The NFA, enacted in 1934, has long required purchasers of silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and other “Any Other Weapon” (AOW) types to pay a $200 tax and register such firearms with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). While recent legislation known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” removed the $200 tax, it retained the registration requirements.
SAF leaders argue that the registration rules now lack constitutional justification without the tax. “With the tax now set to $0, the remaining registration requirements for these arms under the NFA have no constitutional basis,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Completely removing them from the NFA is now a must, and this suit aims to eradicate the barriers to the exercise of the Second Amendment.”
The lawsuit represents SAF’s second legal challenge to the NFA. Kraut noted that the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is joining this case as a plaintiff, supported financially by SAF, to strengthen the effort.
SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said this lawsuit represents a historic opportunity. “This is the best opportunity in a generation to eliminate major portions of the NFA since its inception nearly a century ago,” Gottlieb said. “The government is going to be hard-pressed to justify the law as a tax without a tax, and the type of regulation of Second Amendment-protected arms seen in the NFA is without any historical support. We’re hopeful its days are numbered.”
The outcome of this case could have sweeping implications for firearm regulations in the United States, especially concerning silencers, short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and AOWs.
The plaintiffs’ legal argument focuses on the constitutional right to bear arms, claiming that without the $200 tax, the NFA’s remaining requirements constitute an unjustified restriction on Second Amendment rights. The case is expected to draw significant attention from both gun rights advocates and opponents of deregulation.
By: BSH staff