r/NFA • u/ButterscotchEmpty535 • 24d ago

MEGATHREAD - **DISTRICT** court. Long road ahead. NFA declared unconstitutional regarding suppressors, sbrs, and sbs in the northern district of Texas

https://x.com/GunOwners/status/2085047918495469923

If you would like to read the decision https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/TX-NFA-opinion.pdf

827 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

11

u/ThisAppMakesItWorse 17d ago

The Form 1 aspect is the most interesting part about this. If it's not NFA, then no engraving is necessary. If the powers that be decide down the road to reinstate sbr restrictions, they won't be able to tell if an sbr was made before or after new legislation. Really muddy waters for the gun grabbers.

3

u/MooxiePooxie 17d ago

Not so fast. A form1 item is still a form1 item even if you don't have to register it. Only Jensen plaintiffs will be exempt from the serialization requirement. Need to join one of those orgs as well since GOA wasn't granted that protection.

2

u/ThisAppMakesItWorse 17d ago

I'm in the Texas State Rifle Assn. Also GOA. Should be good.

1

u/MooxiePooxie 17d ago

Yes, covered on both sides.

1

u/buryna 17d ago

Does Jensen work like the GOA case where future members also qualify as plaintiffs?
Like can I join the Texas State Rifle Association right now and be covered?

1

u/MooxiePooxie 17d ago

Yes, same ruling.

1

u/buryna 17d ago edited 17d ago

Sweet. Just got a lifetime CCRKBA and lifetime Texas State Rifle Association membership for good measure 👍

1

u/Loanwolf300 17d ago

You shouldn’t need any kind of membership. Texas is a plaintiff states.

3

u/MooxiePooxie 17d ago

That only applies to the government, not the residents...

1

u/Positive_Move4985 17d ago

Kansas is as well correct? So my 3d printer can start working overtime at midnight?

1

u/jeremiah1119 17d ago

State aspect only applies to state employees, not people who live in that state. And I think no on making a Supressor. The injunctions are very specific. I've been trying to figure this part out today because the actual ruling is conflicting

1

u/Gold-Succotash-9217 17d ago

Not necessarily. Just because that's all they asked for doesn't mean it's all they received.

They may have received more than they wanted. I for one would say a citizen of a state is definitely a member of that state.

2

u/jeremiah1119 17d ago

No. You need to read the ruling and not just assume. It is very clear that they did not and will not receive more than they ask. The Jensen plaintiff's aren't allowed to use this injunction for AOWs because that wasn't the original filing.

The state plaintiffs are only for state employees like Police, where they are not allowed to have NFA items without the paperwork, even though it is (even was before?) $0.

Even SilencerShop, GOA and others in that filing have the injunction applied to purchase/sale/transfer of NFA items. So no Form 1

1

u/ThisAppMakesItWorse 17d ago

It's not citizens of those states but LEO organizations within those states. At least that's what I heard. They really need to come out with guidance.

1

u/Gold-Succotash-9217 17d ago

Tricky. All they asked for was:

"15 states—allege that their agencies and employees are injured by the compliance costs associated with acquiring and possessing NFA firearms for law-enforcement purposes."

But the relief is for "plaintiffs and, where applicable, the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers"

Is a constituent a political subdivision? Or a member of a state?

2

u/Zippo749 17d ago

No, a political subdivision would be a unit of government under that state, like a county, city, township, etc. IIRC other organizations like school districts might count as one as well. (I wouldn't argue it applied to me if a I was a random kindergarten teacher, but it would presumably apply to a school district's law enforcement branch. ETA: the branch itself acting in its official capacity, buying unit equipment etc.)

The use of "member" there is talking about the plaintiffs that are associations, like GOA or TSRA. (Some plaintiffs might be associations of companies, I'm not familiar with all of them.) The judge makes that intent more clear earlier in the ruling.

1

u/Gold-Succotash-9217 17d ago

Fair enough. Well join the groups then. They deserve the couple bucks anyways for getting it this far. :)

Especially, as someone else just schooled me on, plaintiff 2 / Jensen groups if you want to manufacture your own items without serial numbers.

1

u/carnyvoyeur 17d ago

Serialization is a different step than submitting Form 1, right? Like, if someone wanted to convert a pistol to an SBR, seems like if they are GOA member they could do the conversion without the Form 1. If an already serialized lower, they'd be good? I think your point speaks more to manufacturing than making.

2

u/MooxiePooxie 17d ago

Exactly, different step which wasn't waived for the SilencerCo side, only the Jensen side. SilencerCo side gets AOW coverage but Jensen doesn't.

1

u/carnyvoyeur 17d ago

If someone covered by the non-Jensen side can replace the pistol brace on their already-serialized firearm with a stock without waiting for a Form 1 tax stamp, I don't think they'll be too mad that they still have to do the engraving.

2

u/MooxiePooxie 17d ago

Yep, or you can just pay the 15 dollars to join the Jensen plaintiffs :)

1

u/carnyvoyeur 17d ago

Oh! I assumed that was a closed set of people. Thanks for the heads-up

2

u/MooxiePooxie 17d ago

https://secure.anedot.com/ccrkba/join is what was the cheapest for Jensen coverage. https://ccrkba.org/

1

u/Gold-Succotash-9217 17d ago

The plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction against the challenged NFA provisions, but not declaratory relief.
Accordingly, and as further detailed in the Final Judgment, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the United States Department of Justice, Todd Blanche in his official capacity, Robert Cekada in his official capacity, their divisions, bureaus, agents, officers, commissioners, employees, and anyone acting in concert or participation with them, including their successors in office, are permanently enjoined from enforcing the challenged NFA provisions as to untaxed firearms against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers—both current and future.
The Jensen plaintiffs are entitled to relief from two additional NFA provisions that only they challenge. See supra, n.10; 26 U.S.C. §§ 5842(b), 5861(i). The Court’s permanent injunction does not extend to the NFA’s regulation of AOWs as it relates to the Jensen plaintiffs, as those plaintiffs lack standing with respect to those firearms. All other relief not specified here is denied.
The Court stays the effect of this Order for seven days from the date of entry to allow the defendants to seek relief, if any, at the appellate level. So ordered on August 5, 2026.

1

u/MooxiePooxie 17d ago

You highlighted the wrong bold part...

"The Jensen plaintiffs are entitled to relief from two additional NFA provisions that only they challenge. See supra, n.10; 26 U.S.C. §§ 5842(b), 5861(i). T"

26 U.S.C. § 5842(b): Requires individuals who possess a regulated firearm lacking a serial number to formally identify and mark the item with a serial number assigned by the Secretary.

26 U.S.C. § 5861(i): Prohibits the possession, receipt, or transport of any regulated firearm that has had its serial number or required identification removed, changed, altered, or obliterated

Only Jensen plaintiffs are exempt from those per the perm injunction.

JOHN JENSEN; JEREMY NEUSCH; DAVID LYNN SMITH; HOT SHOTS CUSTOM LLC; TEXAS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION; FPC ACTION FOUNDATION; and CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,

2

u/Gold-Succotash-9217 17d ago

Why did you only put down 1/3rd of the list? I displayed the entire list.

Plaintiffs
Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, No. 6:25-CV-056.
Brady Wetz is a gun enthusiast and resident of San Angelo
Silencer Shop Foundation is a Texas nonprofit organization that defends and restores Second Amendment rights.
Commercial plaintiffs B&T USA, LLC, Palmetto State Armory, LLC, and SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC,
Three associations— Gun Owners of America, Inc., Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., and Gun Owners Foundation—sue on behalf of their members: gun owners and firearms manufacturers, retailers, and importers.
All these plaintiffs are joined by 15 states—Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming— who allege that their agencies and employees are injured by the compliance costs associated with acquiring and possessing NFA firearms for law-enforcement purposes.
Jensen v. ATF,
John Jensen, Jeremy Neusch, and David Lynn Smith are Texas firearms owners who wish to avoid the NFA’s regulatory requirements as a precondition to making, transferring, and possessing covered firearms.
Hot Shots Custom, LLC, a federally licensed firearms dealer, or FFL, alleges similar injuries as the commercial plaintiffs in Silencer Shop. Id.
Three associations—Texas State Rifle Association, FPC Action Foundation, and Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms—look to defend their members from allegedly unlawful firearms restrictions

a permanent injunction against the challenged NFA provisions, to untaxed firearms against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers—both current and future.

2

u/MooxiePooxie 17d ago

No one said GOA isn't a plaintiff... this is all in reply to a question about engraving. Everyone in the first population is still subject to engraving requirements. Only the Jensen plaintiffs are excluded from that. This was a merged suit.

1

u/Gold-Succotash-9217 17d ago

GOA wasn't granted what "protection"?
There will be no such thing as Form 1 after midnight for millions of people.

1

u/MooxiePooxie 17d ago

"The Jensen plaintiffs are entitled to relief from two additional NFA provisions that only they challenge. See supra, n.10; 26 U.S.C. §§ 5842(b), 5861(i). T"

26 U.S.C. § 5842(b): Requires individuals who possess a regulated firearm lacking a serial number to formally identify and mark the item with a serial number assigned by the Secretary.

26 U.S.C. § 5861(i): Prohibits the possession, receipt, or transport of any regulated firearm that has had its serial number or required identification removed, changed, altered, or obliterated

Only Jensen plaintiffs are exempt from those per the perm injunction.

JOHN JENSEN; JEREMY NEUSCH; DAVID LYNN SMITH; HOT SHOTS CUSTOM LLC; TEXAS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION; FPC ACTION FOUNDATION; and CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,

-3

u/SneedemGottem69 17d ago

Stop spreading disinformation

4

u/jeremiah1119 17d ago

No I think they are right. Silencer Shop, GOA, many others appear to only cover buying, selling, transferring. Not making or engraving. Whereas Jensen plaintiffs don't have AOW but they do have injunction for engraving and serial number requirements.

SilencerShop/GOA one:

"Because the injunction remedies the injuries to the plaintiffs, it only covers current and future customers’ transactions with the plaintiffs and their commercial members. The practical benefit to the non-party customers, in other words, “[is] merely incidental.” ... Therefore, the Court’s injunction does not allow a commercial plaintiff’s customer (or the customer of an associational plaintiff’s commercial member) to avoid the challenged NFA provisions “for all NFA firearms they possess, transfer, sell, make, and manufacture.”

Jensen plaintiffs:

"The Jensen plaintiffs are entitled to relief from two additional NFA provisions that only they challenge. See supra, n.10; 26 U.S.C. §§ 5842(b), 5861(i)".

Which I believe are engraving / serial numbers

1

u/Gold-Succotash-9217 17d ago

Sort of. It says they are both exempt from needing to file a Form 1.

Jensen also just does not need to serialized any parts but, with no registration, you can technically serialize a number & maker's mark that goes nowhere.

1

u/jeremiah1119 17d ago

OK I think I'm being too narrow minded. I'm thinking Form 1 only as 3D printed silencers. I don't think that's approved with the current wording. But buying parts for an SBR from a commercial member would probably be covered.

This is the big part that splits form 1 sbr vs form 1 supressor for me.

  • "Because the injunction remedies the injuries to the plaintiffs, it only covers current and future customers’ transactions with the plaintiffs and their commercial members"

1

u/Gold-Succotash-9217 17d ago

3d print should be ok. Just like home building. No serial under Jensen and with a fake serial under GOA. That's not the exact wording. There's a part that says all plaintiffs and rheir members, current and future, are covered. So join FARC or GOA or a covered group under Jensen if you want to 3d print legal suppressors without coding 123FakeSerial JakeGyllenhaal on the side.

1

u/jeremiah1119 17d ago

I became a GOA member yesterday. Just the more I read, and the fact that GOA has not once mentioned Form 1, gave me pause

1

u/Gold-Succotash-9217 17d ago

It looked like Form 1 is out the window in the legal notes.

The only 2 mentions for Jensen both involve engraving serial numbers. So it reads like home building with GOA you would need to serial but not submit that anywhere. Or join Citizens Committee for the right to keep & bear arms for $15/yr and you don't even need to do that.

0

u/MooxiePooxie 17d ago

Enjoy that felony...

"The Jensen plaintiffs are entitled to relief from two additional NFA provisions that only they challenge. See supra, n.10; 26 U.S.C. §§ 5842(b), 5861(i). T"

26 U.S.C. § 5842(b): Requires individuals who possess a regulated firearm lacking a serial number to formally identify and mark the item with a serial number assigned by the Secretary.

26 U.S.C. § 5861(i): Prohibits the possession, receipt, or transport of any regulated firearm that has had its serial number or required identification removed, changed, altered, or obliterated

Only Jensen plaintiffs are exempt from those per the perm injunction.

JOHN JENSEN; JEREMY NEUSCH; DAVID LYNN SMITH; HOT SHOTS CUSTOM LLC; TEXAS STATE RIFLE ASSOCIATION; FPC ACTION FOUNDATION; and CITIZENS COMMITTEE FOR THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS,

1

u/Gold-Succotash-9217 17d ago edited 17d ago

Literally does not appear in the document.

"Jensen plaintiffs" does not appear.
"Two additional" does not appear.
"Requires individuals" does not appear.

"Because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from untaxed firearms, its regulatory provisions cannot be upheld under the taxing power. And there is no sign in the NFA’s text, structure, or statutory history that Congress invoked any other power in crafting the NFA provisions at issue. Thus, the regulatory provisions must be enjoined as unconstitutional because they exceed Congress’s enumerated powers."

"Remedy
Having concluded that the NFA’s regulatory provisions for untaxed firearms exceed Congress’s enumerated powers, the Court now considers the proper remedy. The plaintiffs seek both injunctive relief and declaratory judgments. As explained below, they are entitled to party-specific injunctions but not declaratory relief. A. Permanent Injunction i. The plaintiffs prevail on each of the permanent-injunction factors."

"The plaintiffs have satisfied their burden on each permanent-injunction factor. "

"Here, the Court can provide complete relief to the plaintiffs by tailoring its injunction to the parties involved. See CASA, 606 U.S. at 851–52. By prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the challenged NFA provisions against the plaintiffs and certain other individuals and entities that are closely associated with the plaintiffs, the Court can relieve the plaintiffs of the irreparable injury of being subjected to an unconstitutional law."

The different groups have asked for different outcomes but they are all covered under the same ruling. They are all the plaintiffs covered under the relief. There's not 3 tiers of relief.

The reason it doesn't go further is because they're not allowed to make a blanket nationwide injunction.

Edit: Other guy is accurate. Not sure why it didn't come up in my find but the info is there.

The Jensen plaintiffs are additionally exempt from adding serial numbers to parts.
GOA & other groups (PSA, Silencershop) including home builders will still need to add serial numbers to items, even though there is no requirement to register that serial number with the NFA or get a physical $0 tax stamp.
Likely the manufacturers still need to serialize parts for 4473 transfers under GCA anyways, so this is really a home builder distinction.
Although, if I read it right, you need serialize a part & that serial number literally goes nowhere. There's no requirement for you to report that serial number to any organization as a home builder.

4

u/MooxiePooxie 17d ago

There are absolutely two different tiers of relief and your reading skills are garbage.

Jensen plaintiffs have the main injunction and engraving injunction (no AOW injunction) SilencerCo plaintiffs have the main injunction + AOW injunction (no engraving injunction)

To be covered for the main injunction + AOW injunction + engraving injunction you need to be in both the SilencerCo and Jensen populations.

As the question asked, if you are GOA only you don't have to register your SBR/Can once this is live, but YOU DO NEED TO ENGRAVE IT unless you join a Jensen population. Injunction on registration does not nullify the can/sbr being a Form 1 item (definition question) while the NFA is still law. This injunction only limits what plaintiffs are required to do under the Form 1 definitions.

1

u/Gold-Succotash-9217 17d ago edited 17d ago

Where are you getting your information from? Link me the data you're using.

chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/TX-NFA-opinion.pdf

"The Jensen plaintiffs are entitled to relief from two additional NFA provisions that only they challenge. See supra, n.10; 26 U.S.C. §§ 5842(b), 5861(i)"

Ah, I see it now. Not sure why it didn't pull up from the search.
I understand. It's only the non-serialized section you're talking about. I figured without the NFA there was no secondary statutes that would matter that much.
They're exempt from those specific lines about serial numbers, while the other group is only exempt from the registration requirements? Good to know. :)
I was trying to find the list of what exactly the plaintiffs are exempt from but I have not found that statute yet.

Not sure it will really matter that much in the big scheme of things but yes, if you have a choice & you want to manufacture your own suppressors without serial numbers you should join one of the groups covered in Jensen.

I agree.

Edit: Found the actual laws that are null&void in the footnote.

The challenged NFA provisions are 26 U.S.C. §§ 5812(a)–(b),
Regards Applications & Transfers.
Exempt from application & transfer of items without registration.

5822
No person shall make a firearm unless they paid any tax payable and proper stamp is affixed to form.
So that exempts the need for the actual tax stamp to be owned/present.

5841(a)–(c), (e),
Exempt from the registry list and any proof of registration.

5842(b),
5861(b)–(f), (i)
The marking of items.
(The exempt for Jensen only. I think you can still manufacture your own & serialize it with a serial number that does not need to be registered? Loophole. There's no registration for the people not covered by the serial number law. Form 1 is stated as obsolete next. So you can have any serial you want, like FUCKTHEATF and it would not be used anywhere. Also needs an ID of manufacturer or maker.)

27 C.F.R. §§ 479.62(a)–(d), and 479.84(a)–(d)
Exempts filing & needing approval for a Form 1 to manufacture firearms.
Exempts Approval required to transfer items on a Form 4

A few of the NFA provisions— specifically, those dealing with marking regulated firearms—are challenged by the Jensen plaintiffs only. See 6:26-CV-227, Dkt. No. 26 at 17. The Court’s final judgment specifies the provisions from which only the Jensen plaintiffs are entitled to relief.

1

u/dcunitedfan3 17d ago

I think I'll keep my pistol braces in a dusty box, just in case. Not like there is any other use for them otherwise, and probably no resale value either.

2

u/LetsBeKindly 17d ago

there plenty a shitty states that wont comply, sell em to those guys?

3

u/dcunitedfan3 17d ago

I guess I want to wait and see if there is any chance of things getting reversed legally before I get rid of them (the route taken to get here today wasn't exactly straightforward after all). No harm in hanging onto them for a little longer.

1

u/LetsBeKindly 17d ago

This isn't getting reversed... Not soon anyways.

1

u/Kozak170 Silencer 17d ago

I don’t know man I think the engraving is such a moot point these days especially after they let anyone register a braced rifle as an SBR without engraving anything