Gun Rights Groups File Lawsuit Challenging National Firearms Act

A second lawsuit has been filed in federal court challenging the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) as an unconstitutional firearms registration plan.

The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on Aug. 1.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, supported by President Donald Trump, reduced the NFA’s excise tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and a category labeled “any other weapon” from $200 to $0.

However, the items must still be registered under the NFA.

According to the plaintiffs, the new law effectively neutralizes the NFA’s taxing authority, making it an illegal firearms registry.

The plaintiffs want the court to remove the items from regulation under the NFA completely.

Machine guns and “destructive devices” are still subject to the $200 tax under the NFA.

The plaintiffs are the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the American Suppressor Association, along with individuals Chris Brown and Allen Mayville, and Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, a private business.

They are suing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and its acting director, Daniel P. Driscoll, in his official capacity, as well as the Department of Justice and Attorney General Pam Bondi in her official capacity.

The plaintiffs expressed confidence in the legal basis for their lawsuit in a statement announcing the action.

“The Constitution grants Congress only limited powers—none of which authorize the registration of privately owned firearms,” Doug Hamlin, NRA executive vice president and CEO, said in a statement. “In fact, as we expect the courts to recognize in our case, the Second Amendment forbids it.”

In 1937, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the NFA is a legal exercise of Congress’s taxing authority. The court found that the government could gather information on the owners of certain firearms and their accessories as part of the tax system.

But the One Big Beautiful Bill Act only limited the application of the tax, rather than eliminating it, and gun control proponents in Congress say they are not done with the NFA.

Senate Amendment 2973, introduced by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), would raise the tax to $4,709, roughly the equivalent of the $200 tax in 1934. Murphy said the amendment is meant to save lives.

“If we want to save lives in this country, we have to find a way, come hell or high water, to stop mass legalization of silencers in this country,” Murphy stated in a video posted on X.

Kris Brown, the president of Brady United, a gun control organization, decried the NFA changes as well as cuts to other federal programs in the bill.

“The passage of Trump’s tax legislation is an absolute travesty and a golden gift to gun industry CEOs and would-be assassins and mass shooters,” Brown wrote in a statement on the Brady website.

Murphy’s legislation is a proposed amendment to the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026, which funds construction projects for the military. No action had been taken on it as of Aug. 2.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act originally repealed the NFA’s excise tax, rather than reducing it. The repeal language was removed after Congressional Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough determined it did not comport with the tax purposes of the bill.

Gun Owners of America has long contended that the federal government has a de facto gun registry filled with the information gleaned from background checks for gun sales, as well as from the NFA.

The ATF has denied that such a registry exists.

An earlier challenge to the NFA was brought on July 4, when Gun Owners of America, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation, Palmetto State Armory LLC, Silencerco Weapons Research LLC, and Brady Wetz, an individual, sued the ATF, Driscoll, the DOJ, and Bondi in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

“Plaintiffs seek an order declaring that the NFA is unconstitutional with respect to the untaxed firearms it purports to regulate and enjoining enforcement of the unconstitutional provisions,” the lawsuit states.