➡ A group of gun owners and organizations have filed a lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, arguing that the National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional. They claim that since Congress passed a bill eliminating the $200 tax on certain firearms, the NFA no longer serves a legitimate taxing purpose. The lawsuit seeks to remove the NFA’s registration and transfer requirements for all firearms no longer subject to the tax. Despite attempts by the Department of Justice to pause the case due to a government shutdown, the judge ruled that the lawsuit will continue.
➡ Check out my social media links in the description and pinned comment. Share good news with your friends, express love to your family, and stay safe. Remember to stay alert, armed, and cherish your freedom, America. God bless you all and take care.

Hey guys! Got a little bit of good news to share with you this afternoon and it has to do with one of the biggest lawsuits we’re watching and that’s one of the lawsuits looking to destroy the National Firearms Act. Hey everybody welcome back to the channel I am Jared and this is Guns and Gadgets welcome to the Patriots Lounge. I love this. The Patriots Tavern and Meeting House might be the best sign I ever found. It’s what it’s all about is us Patriots sharing information so that everybody knows what’s going on and that’s what I look to do here on Guns and Gadgets the premier source for Second Amendment news.

First, as a refresher for you, the one big beautiful lawsuit is a federal lawsuit filed on July 4th of 2025 in the Northern District of Texas by Silencer Shop Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition or FRAC, B&T USA, Palmetto State Armory, Silencer Co., Gun Owners Foundation, and a Texas gun owner named Brady Wets. Now they are suing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Department of Justice, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, and ATF Acting Director Daniel Driscoll. The plaintiffs argue, that’s the good guys, that the National Firearms Act, the NFA, has become even more unconstitutional after Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which eliminated the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs or any other weapons.

Now the complaint explains that when Congress first enacted the NFA way back in 1934, the law was justified solely under Congress’s taxing power, unconstitutionally, and that $200 tax was deliberately burdensome, and it was designed to discourage private ownership of certain firearms. But now that the tax has been set to zero dollars, the plaintiffs argue, that the NFA no longer serves any legitimate taxing purpose, and without that foundation it can’t stand under the Constitution. They cite past Supreme Court precedent like US versus Constantine from 1935, which held that a measure not generating revenue cannot be justified as a tax.

The plaintiffs argue, that because Congress has not reenacted the NFA under any other constitutional authority, its remaining registration and transfer requirements are void. The plaintiffs, both the individuals and the organizations, describe how these federal registration rules impose significant burdens on lawful gun owners and the firearms industry. The individual plaintiff Brady Wetz is a Texas resident and a GOA member, and he says that he values his privacy and objects to being forced to give the government personal data, such as fingerprints, photographs, and firearms details, just to own a silencer or short-barreled rifle.

He explains that applying for these items can take hours of paperwork and weeks or months of waiting for ATF approval, not to mention extra costs for fingerprints and photos. Now he intends to buy more NFA items now that the tax is zero, but he won’t do so while the registration requirements remain, since possessing an unregistered NFA item is still a felony. The organizational plaintiffs, GOA, GOF, and FRAC, they assert that the NFA’s rules harm their members and missions. GOA and GOF say many of their members would buy short-barreled rifles or silencers if they didn’t have to register with the federal government.

That’s probably most gun owners. FRAC, which represents firearms manufacturers, says the registration system shrinks the market and drives away customers, because many gun owners refuse to share personal data with ATF. The business plaintiffs, Palmetto State Armory, B&T USA, and SilencerCo, each describe financial losses caused by these barriers. They say customers avoid buying NFA items, forcing companies to redesign and market firearms that dodge the NFA’s definitions just to stay viable. In their legal argument, the plaintiffs contend that because the NFA’s regulatory structure, which is the registration and transfer restrictions, because it now applies to untaxed firearms, to untaxed items, it exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers.

The entire law was upheld historically only as an exercise of the taxing power, not under the Commerce Clause or any other Article 140. Therefore, they seek both a declaratory judgment that the NFA is unconstitutional for untaxed firearms and a permanent injunction barring the federal government from enforcing any NFA requirements related to those weapons. The complaint concludes with a request for the court to strike down the NFA’s registration and transfer mandates for all firearms no longer subject to that $200 tax, essentially deregulating suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and any other weapons.

If successful, the case would mark a massive rollback of federal gun control, reducing the NFA to cover only machine guns and destructive devices. Yes, we all are in agreement that those shouldn’t be in the NFA either. It’s unconstitutional, one step at a time. You’re not gonna find a single judge in the country that’ll agree that all of those should come out at once. You’re just not going to. And those are the only two that would remain. Those two categories would only be the left under the taxing part, which is why they’re technically still okay according to the Supreme Court, even though it’s unconstitutional.

All right, so that’s the lawsuit. Now you’re caught up. Then on October 24th, just a few days ago, the Department of Justice entered a motion to pause or stay the proceedings. And I wanted to see what the judge said before I reported on that because this, wait till you hear what the DOJ said. The DOJ said that because of the ongoing federal government shutdown and the lapse in appropriations, its attorneys are legally barred from working on most matters unless they involve emergencies that affect human life or property. Many would say the Second Amendment affects human life or property.

Now under federal law 31 USC 1342, DOJ attorneys can’t continue even voluntarily without congressional funding. So the department was requesting that the court temporarily halt all activity on this case until funding was restored. Both sides had already agreed to a streamlined schedule to move straight to summary judgment with final briefs expected by early January of 2026. However, when the government’s funding expired on September 30th of 25, the DOJ attorneys were prohibited from preparing their response to the plane of summary judgment motion. Now the department stresses that the case involves complex constitutional questions that demand careful preparation and that it would be unfair and inefficient to proceed when the defense team cannot legally work.

The DOJ assured the court it’s committed to a timely resolution once Congress restores funding. If the state is granted, the government proposed submitting a new briefing schedule within 10 days after funding resumes. Now the motion also noted that the plaintiffs opposed this request signaling that Silencer Shop, GOA, FRAC, Palmetto State Armory, B&T, G.O.F., SilencerCo, and all their attorneys want the case to move forward despite the shutdown. In short, this filing is the government’s attempt to pause a major Second Amendment test case over the NFA until DOJ lawyers can legally return to work.

But then there’s the DOJ’s own contingency plan which explicitly says that if a court denies a stay and orders the case to continue, DOJ lawyers are permitted to keep working on it. Well, just about an hour ago the judge made the decision in this stay request with the attempt to pause the train until the government shutdown ends. Judge Hendricks agreed with the reasoning that the DOJ put out there emphasizing that federal shutdowns don’t automatically stop DOJ attorneys from working when a court instructs them to proceed. He even cited Judge Hendricks agreed with that reasoning that, you know, if they say, you know what, too bad keep going, they have to keep going.

The judge emphasized that federal shutdowns don’t automatically stop DOJ attorneys from working when a court instructs them to proceed. He even cited a DC Circuit precedent affirming that principle. While denying most of the government’s request, the judge did grant a brief extension out of fairness recognizing that this case involves a major Second Amendment claim and therefore requires detailed and careful briefing. He allowed the DOJ one extra week until November 13th of 2025 to file its combined response and cross motion for summary judgment. All other case deadlines remain unchanged.

In short, this ruling keeps the one big beautiful bill lawsuit moving forward despite the federal shutdown ensuring that the ATF and DOJ cannot use the budget laps to delay proceedings. So we have some good news. The lawsuit presses on even though the DOJ tried to pause it in hopes of delaying what should be the inevitable response hero decision from the court. I just wanted to give you this update so that you can go through the rest of your afternoon and evening with a smile. The more information for more information on this lawsuit and all the others, make sure that you are subscribed to Guns and Gadgets and check this channel every single day to keep up to date with all that is happening on the Second Amendment.

Don’t wait for YouTube to serve it up to you on your page there to tell you what is suggested because they don’t really like this channel. You have to physically go to my channel daily and see what video or videos I have put out that day. You can also subscribe to me on my socials, particularly X, so you know exactly what I’m up to because sometimes I put out news that isn’t in video format. Links to my socials are in the description and I’ll put them in the pinned comment as well.

Go forth, spread some great news, share it with some friends, and tell your loved ones that you love them. Until the next one, be safe, stay vigilant, and stay armed, and stay free America. God bless you. Take care. you
[tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.