Buckeye Reporter

A coalition of gun rights organizations, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), American Suppressor Association (ASA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). The case, Brown v. ATF, was submitted on August 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique and two individual members are also plaintiffs in the suit.

The NFA originally imposed a $200 tax and registration requirements on certain firearms such as suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and other weapons defined by the act. However, after President Donald J. Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), this excise tax was eliminated. The complaint argues that without this tax, Congress no longer has justification under its taxing power or any other Article I authority to maintain the NFA’s registration system.

The lawsuit further claims that requiring registration for suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment. According to recent Supreme Court decisions, regulations on firearms must align with historical traditions of firearm regulation. The plaintiffs argue there is no historical precedent supporting registration requirements for these types of arms.

Doug Hamlin, NRA executive vice president and CEO, stated: “The Constitution grants Congress only limited powers — none of which authorize the registration of privately owned firearms. In fact, as we expect the courts to recognize in our case, the Second Amendment forbids it. This infringement of individual rights has gone on far too long.”

John Commerford, executive director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action, said: “The National Firearms Act has infringed on law-abiding Americans’ right to keep and bear arms for nearly a century. Congress took a major step by eliminating the NFA tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms through the OBBB, and we’re proud to work alongside other leading Second Amendment organizations to finish the job.”

Knox Williams, president and executive director of ASA, commented: “The National Firearms Act has been a weight around the neck of law-abiding gun owners for nearly a century. With the elimination of the excise tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs through the One Big Beautiful Bill, our lawsuit challenges the NFA as an unconstitutional registry of now untaxed firearms. Common sense and the law are on our side, and we look forward to fighting on behalf of all Americans in Federal Court.”

Adam Kraut, SAF's executive director said: “The National Firearms Act's registration scheme only exists to ensure that the tax on NFA firearms was paid. With Congress removing the tax on silencers, short-barreled firearms, and ‘any other weapons,’ the continued inclusion of these items in the NFA serves no purpose, except continuing to retain an impermissible hurdle to the exercise of one’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We look forward to relegating this unconstitutional law to the history books.”

Brandon Combs, president of FPC added: “The National Firearms Act isn’t just unconstitutional; it’s a tyrannical abomination. Not only does the NFA violate your Second Amendment rights, but Congress never had the lawful authority to pass it in the first place. That makes it a double abuse of power, violating both the right to keep and bear arms and the hard limits the Constitution places on the federal government. We’re proud to fight alongside our allies to end this corrupt, immoral law so peaceable Americans can exercise their rights when, where, and how they choose.”

Further information about what changes from stripping down 'Big Beautiful Bill' means for gun owners nationally—and specifically in Ohio—can be found at https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/what-stripped-down-big-beautiful-bill-means-gun-owners-nationally-ohio.

A copy of Brown v. ATF is available online.