➡ A group of gun owners, businesses, and advocacy groups have filed a lawsuit against the National Firearms Act (NFA), arguing it’s unconstitutional. They claim that since the NFA was justified as a tax, and the tax has now been reduced to zero dollars, the NFA has no constitutional basis. The lawsuit also argues that the NFA doesn’t regulate commerce and that there’s no historical tradition of requiring federal registration of arms. This case could potentially lead to the end of federal control over suppressors and short-barreled rifle restrictions.

Ah, another attack on the NFA, and this could be the one. Just follow along with me here. What if I told you the entire National Firearms Act, the law that’s controlled suppressors, short barrel rifles, and more since 1934, is now facing another serious legal challenge that could collapse it entirely? Not tweak it, not reform it, but strike it down. Stay with me because this one is massive. Hey everybody, welcome back to Guns and Gadgets, your home for Second Amendment news, legal breakdowns, and the fight to preserve our constitutional rights. If you’re new here, this channel is about cutting through the noise and giving you real, fact-based updates on what is actually happening with our rights, especially when it comes to the courts, the Department of Justice, and federal overreach.

If that matters to you, subscribe right now because this one we’re talking about right now could be historic. So here’s the deal. A coalition of plaintiffs, individual gun owners, businesses, and advocacy groups have filed a motion for summary judgment in federal court in Kentucky. That means they’re asking the court, there are no disputed facts here, rule right now, as a matter of law, that the NFA is unconstitutional. And the case is directly targeting the core framework of the National Firearms Act of 1934. We’re talking about suppressors, short-barrel rifles, short-barrel shotguns, and any other weapons.

Now this isn’t theoretical. This is a live federal lawsuit, and the legal arguments are very aggressive. Here’s where it gets interesting, and honestly, where this gets dangerous for the government. The entire NFA was originally justified under Congress’s taxing power. Not a police power, not general authority, but taxing power. And the Supreme Court, even in cases like Sosinski versus the United States, said that the NFA is basically just a tax. And that’s critical, because now that tax is gone on those items I’ve mentioned. And in 2025, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that was signed into law by President Trump.

And what did it do? It reduced the NFA tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms and any other weapons to zero dollars. Zero dollars, no tax. But the regulation remains. And here’s the argument for the plaintiffs that they’re making. If the NFA was constitutional because it was a tax, and now it’s not a tax anymore, well then the entire regulatory system is built on the tax, and it has no constitutional foundation now. The filing literally argues that a zero dollar tax produces no revenue. No revenue equals not a tax. No tax equals no authority under the taxing clause.

You gotta spell it out for these judges. And that means the registration requirements, the fingerprinting, and the federal approval process, all of it falls apart. Now you might be thinking, all right, well the government will just say that this is done under the Commerce Clause. Well, pump the brakes there too. The plaintiffs anticipate that, and they shut that down. They argue that the NFA doesn’t regulate commerce at all. It applies even to purely intrastate activity, meaning it doesn’t even leave the state. It regulates possession, not just sales. And under cases like the United States versus Lopez, Congress cannot regulate everything just by claiming it affects commerce.

So the argument is, this isn’t commerce, this isn’t a tax, therefore it is unconstitutional. And then comes the knockout punch. The plaintiffs bring in the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association versus Bruin case, which changed everything. Under Bruin, we all know this, if something is an arm, it’s protected. The government must prove a historical tradition of firearm regulation, and here’s what the lawsuit says. Suppressors, well, they’re in common use. Short-barreled rifles, they’re in common use, and they’re not dangerous and unusual. And the most important part, there’s no historical tradition of requiring federal registration of arms, which means the NFA fails the Bruin test.

It’s not academic, the plaintiffs spell it out. People want to buy suppressors, but won’t because of the federal rules. Businesses are losing sales. Organizations can’t even acquire items for education. And if they ignore the NFA, they face felony charges up to 10 years in prison and massive fines, all for exercising what they argue is a constitutional right. If the court agrees with the motion, we’re not talking about a small ruling. We’re talking about NFA registration requirements being struck down. Federal control over suppressors collapsing and short-barreled rifle restrictions disappearing and potentially the beginning of the end for the entire NFA framework.

Now let’s stay grounded. There’s five or six, I’ve lost count, six, I think lawsuits now attacking the NFA from different angles, but all basically saying one big beautiful bill act took away the tax. It only was found constitutionally NFA, that is. Because it was a tax, if there’s no tax, the framework’s got to go. So hopefully one of those is the one, but this isn’t a final ruling. This is just a motion, so we need to understand how the courts work. The government will respond to this, and this will likely go through appeals and possibly to the Supreme Court, which is the reason you file these lawsuits.

But make no mistake, this is one of the most serious legal challenges to the NFA in modern history. This is exactly what the founders warned about. A federal government stretching its authority until somebody, somebody finally says, show me where in the Constitution you’re allowed to do this. And right now, that question’s being asked in federal court. And if you want updates as this case develops, and you should, then hit subscribe now to Guns and Gadgets and turn on the notifications, because I will be covering this every single step of the way.

And I want to know this from you now. Do you think the NFA survives this challenge, or is this the beginning of the end? Drop it in the comments down below. Love to hear what your point of view is, what your angle is. And until the next one, stay safe, stay armed, and stay free. We the people run the country, not the bureaucrats. Take care. [tr:trw].

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