The $200 federal stamp tax is dead, but the federal registry lives on—for now. That is the core conflict playing out in a Texas federal court this week as gun rights advocates move to dismantle what remains of the National Firearms Act (NFA).
On Monday, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and a coalition of partners filed a response brief in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The filing in Jensen v. ATF pushes back against the federal government’s motion for summary judgment, arguing that the current registration scheme is a legal zombie: walking, but constitutionally dead.
The “One Big Beautiful Bill” Paradox
For nearly a century, the NFA required Americans to pay a $200 tax and register specific items—such as silencers (suppressors), short-barreled firearms, and “Any Other Weapons” (AOW)—with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
READ: U.S. Weekend Sweep: ICE Nabs Murderers, Predators As Agency Cites Spike In Attacks On Officers
That dynamic shifted dramatically with the recent passage of the “One Big Beautiful Bill.” Effective January 1, 2026, the legislation zeroed out the tax on these items. However, the government maintained the requirement for owners to register the hardware.
The plaintiffs argue that the NFA was originally upheld by the Supreme Court based on Congress’s power to tax. Their central premise in Jensen is simple: if there is no revenue collected, the registration mandate loses its constitutional anchor.
A Battle Over Constitutional Authority
In the newly filed brief, the coalition contends that the government is scrambling to find a new legal footing for an old law.
“The government has done their best to concoct novel justifications for their tax law that now is without a tax,” said Bill Sack, SAF Director of Legal Operations. “Of course, none of them are persuasive.”
Sack noted that federal attorneys are now pivoting toward the Commerce Clause to justify the registry, rather than the taxing authority originally used to validate the NFA in 1934. He described these attempts as “doomed,” stating that neither the attempt to borrow authority from other taxes nor the new commerce arguments can save the registration requirements.
READ: NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani Shrugs Off “White Meat” Tweet Storm, Backs New Equity Chief
The Plaintiffs
The challenge is being brought by a wide-ranging group of advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders, including:
- The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)
- The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
- FPC Action Foundation
- Texas Rifle Association
- Hot Shots Custom
- Three private individuals
“Best Opportunity in a Generation”
The stakes in Jensen v. ATF are high. If the court sides with the plaintiffs, it could result in the complete removal of silencers and short-barreled firearms from NFA regulations, treating them similarly to standard rifles or handguns.
Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and Executive Vice President, views the recent legislative changes as a turning point.
“This is the second case SAF has filed challenging this unconstitutional NFA registration scheme because we fully believe this is the best opportunity in a generation to eliminate major portions of the NFA since its inception,” Gottlieb said.
He added that with the tax eliminated, the government “doesn’t have a leg to stand on,” expressing optimism that the courts will move to restore Second Amendment rights by striking down the residual registration mandates.
The case remains pending before the Northern District of Texas.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
