The U.S. Department of Justice has failed to file an appeal against a Texas court ruling that invalidated portions of the National Firearms Act (NFA), effectively allowing the purchase of silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns without federal registration or additional background checks. The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge James Hendrix in Lubbock, Texas, took effect on August 13, 2026, after the DOJ missed a seven-day deadline to challenge the ruling. This leaves the legal status of these firearms in limbo, with implications for both gun control advocates and proponents of the Second Amendment. Judge Hendrix ruled that provisions of the NFA, enacted in 1934, are unconstitutional. His decision came after the Republican-controlled Congress and former President Donald Trump eliminated a $200 permit tax on firearm suppressors, which the judge cited as a factor in rendering the law invalid. The ruling does not apply nationwide, nor does it override state laws that prohibit silencers. However, it marks a significant shift in federal firearm regulation, particularly regarding the registration and oversight of specific types of weapons. The case originated from a lawsuit filed by several gun dealers and manufacturers, including some based outside northern Texas. These plaintiffs argued that the NFA imposed undue burdens on lawful gun ownership and violated constitutional rights. The court’s decision aligns with broader efforts to roll back federal gun control measures, particularly under the Trump administration. While the ruling applies only in the district where it was issued, similar cases are pending in other jurisdictions, suggesting potential ripple effects across the country. Gun owners' organizations have welcomed the ruling, citing it as a victory for individual freedoms. Gun Owners of America reported that two of its members successfully purchased suppressors from Silencer Shop in Leander, Texas, without needing to complete federal registration procedures. Erich Pratt, the organization’s senior vice president, emphasized that the ruling represents the end of an era in which federal authorities could impose registration requirements on constitutionally protected arms. Advocacy groups such as Giffords, a gun violence prevention organization, expressed concern over the ruling’s impact on public safety. Emma Brown, executive director of Giffords, called the DOJ’s failure to appeal a “failure to defend public safety.” She noted that the NFA had historically aimed to curb the proliferation of dangerous firearms, particularly during periods of organized crime. Adam Skaggs, Giffords’ chief counsel, acknowledged the historical context of the law but warned that the need for regulation remains relevant today. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), responsible for enforcing the NFA, did not respond to requests for comment following the ruling. Despite this, the DOJ retains the option to file an appeal within the coming weeks. Legal experts suggest that the agency may choose to wait and assess whether the ruling will be upheld or reversed on appeal. In the meantime, the practical consequences of the decision, such as the availability of previously restricted firearms, will continue to unfold. As the situation develops, the balance between gun rights and public safety remains a contentious issue. With the DOJ’s inaction, the current legal landscape reflects a growing divide in how federal agencies approach firearm regulation, potentially setting a precedent for future challenges to long-standing laws.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
United States
