Injunction Barring NFA Registration for Suppressors and Short-Barreled Firearms Takes Effect for Case Plaintiffs and Their Customers
A federal judge in Texas ruled on August 5 that the National Firearms Act's registration rules for suppressors and short-barreled guns lost their constitutional basis when Congress zeroed the tax behind them; the seven-day stay lapsed August 12, and the order covers the parties in the case rather than the whole country.
A $200 Tax Went to Zero. So Did the Paperwork That Collected It.
For 92 years, buying a suppressor or a short-barreled rifle meant paying the federal government $200 and waiting for the paperwork to clear. That tax and that paperwork came from the same 1934 law, the National Firearms Act, and they were never meant to travel separately[1][8]. Then, in 2025, Congress cut the tax to zero and left the paperwork standing[1][15].
On August 5, 2026, a federal judge in Texas said that didn't work. U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, a case combined with Jensen v. ATF, that the National Firearms Act's registration rules for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and a catch-all category called "any other weapons" no longer have a constitutional leg to stand on[1][2][3]. He gave the government seven days to ask a higher court to pause the ruling. Nobody did. The stay ran out at the end of August 12, and the order took effect August 13[17][18].
That is the plain sequence. What it means, and for whom, is where the story splits.
Why a Gun Law Was Ever Written as a Tax Law
To understand the ruling, you need to know why the NFA looked the way it did. In 1934, Congress wasn't sure it had the constitutional power to simply ban machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, and similar weapons outright. So it didn't try. Instead, it used its clear power to tax: anyone making or transferring one of these items had to pay $200 and register the transaction[1][8]. The registration system existed to make sure that tax got collected and tracked.
That's the mechanism at the center of this case. A tax needs a way to verify who owes it, so Congress built a paperwork trail around the $200 fee. For decades, the tax and the paperwork moved together, and nobody had reason to pull them apart.
Then, in the 2025 tax-and-spending law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Congress zeroed out the making-and-transfer tax for suppressors and short-barreled guns, effective January 1, 2026. It kept the registration requirement in the statute[1][15]. Judge Hendrix's opinion turns on a simple question: can you keep taxing paperwork when there's no longer a tax? He said no. A tax provision, he reasoned, has to actually raise revenue to count as a tax, and "there is simply no revenue to be had" once the rate hits zero[2][15]. He also rejected the idea that the Commerce Clause, Congress's separate power to regulate trade across state lines, could be swapped in after the fact to justify a law that was written as a tax. If Congress wanted a commerce-based registry, he held, it had to pass one[15].
Two Ways to Read the Same Stack of Paperwork
Here is the collision at the heart of this story: both sides are describing the exact same registration process, and they see almost opposite things in it.
Gun-rights plaintiffs, including SilencerCo, the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, and several state attorneys general, argue the paperwork was never anything more than a tax-collection tool. Once the tax is gone, they say, forcing people through months of federal review and fingerprinting is just a checkpoint with no legal reason to exist[1][2]. Their analogy is a toll booth on a road where the toll no longer exists: stopping every car at that point is no longer collecting anything, it's just stopping cars[1].
Gun-control groups, including Giffords, Brady, and Everytown for Gun Safety, argue the paperwork was doing something else entirely. To get an NFA transfer approved, a buyer submits fingerprints and photos, goes through an FBI background check, and the process notifies local police, who can flag a reason to deny the sale. Giffords' chief counsel, Adam Skaggs, said that process "effectively functioned as a heightened background check for NFA weapons, and that process is no longer enforceable" for the buyers this ruling covers[19]. To this side, ending the paperwork doesn't just clear red tape. It removes a screening step and a record investigators use to trace a gun back to its buyer[10].
Both descriptions are accurate. The tax-collection form and the background-check step were the same piece of paper. Which purpose you think mattered more determines which side of this ruling looks reasonable.
The Word Missing From Most Headlines Is "Some"
Here's where a lot of coverage gets ahead of the facts. Many gun-press headlines describe this as the registry being "gone" or "struck down," full stop[1][9]. That's not what the order says.
The injunction covers a specific, limited group: the named plaintiffs in the case, members of the plaintiff organizations, and current and future customers of the plaintiff companies, like Silencer Shop and SilencerCo[2][17]. The state plaintiffs — Texas and a group of other states, though sources disagree on whether it's fourteen or fifteen — are covered only when their own government agencies buy these items, not when their residents do[2]. Everyone else is still working under the old NFA rules.
Machine guns and destructive devices aren't touched at all. Those categories still carry the $200 tax, so the court's logic about a zeroed-out tax doesn't apply to them[2]. And the court found that the Jensen plaintiffs didn't have standing to challenge the rules for "any other weapons," even though that category is named in the broader ruling[2].
Practically, that means the rule you're under right now depends on which dealer you buy from and whether you belong to one of the plaintiff groups. Gun Owners of America told the Justice Department it would start transferring suppressors without registration once the stay lapsed[14]. A dealer with no connection to this lawsuit is still bound by the old process. That's an unstable setup, and it's part of why some members of Congress are now pressing ATF to extend the relief nationwide instead of running two systems at once[13].
A Policy Shift With No Vote and No Appeal
There's a second story running underneath the legal one, and it's about what the Justice Department chose not to do. Reporting from August 12 said the department let the seven-day stay expire without filing an appeal or asking the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to pause the ruling[12][14]. That account traces back to a lawmaker's announcement and gun-press reporting, not a document this review could independently confirm[12].
If it holds up, it's notable for a reason that has nothing to do with suppressors specifically. An administration can change a regulation's real-world reach without repealing it in Congress and without winning or losing an appeal — just by declining to defend it further. That produces a policy outcome nobody voted on and no appellate court has reviewed. Reporting describes an internal split at the Justice Department over the decision, caught between the institution's usual instinct to defend federal statutes and an administration that campaigned on deregulating suppressors[12][13].
The department's formal argument in court had been that the registration rules survive independently under the Commerce Clause, since suppressors and short-barreled guns move through interstate commerce, and that Congress's power to make laws "necessary and proper" lets it keep the tracking system that still supports the NFA's surviving provisions[10]. That argument didn't win in this courtroom, and for now, no higher court has weighed in on whether it should have.
What Doesn't Change, No Matter What Happens Next
A few things sit outside this ruling entirely, and they matter for anyone trying to figure out what actually changed on August 13. Several states ban or restrict suppressors and short-barreled guns under their own laws, regardless of what federal registration requires. Nothing here touches those state bans, so a buyer's real options still depend heavily on where they live[17].
Separately, in June 2026, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled in a different case that suppressors count as "arms" protected by the Second Amendment — a decision that splits with the Ninth Circuit, which reached the opposite conclusion earlier that same month[16]. That's a live disagreement between appeals courts on a constitutional question this ruling didn't even reach; it could eventually pull the Supreme Court into the suppressor fight on entirely different grounds.
For now, what actually changed for an ordinary buyer is narrower than most of the coverage suggests: some customers, at some dealers, can walk out with a suppressor the same day instead of waiting months for ATF approval[17]. Whether that becomes the rule everywhere, or stays confined to this one case's winners, depends on an appeal that, as of this writing, nobody has filed.
Summary
On August 5, 2026, a federal judge in Texas ruled that part of the National Firearms Act can no longer be enforced. The ruling covers gun silencers (also called suppressors), short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and a catch-all legal category called 'any other weapons'[1][3]. The judge put his order on hold for seven days. That hold ran out at the end of August 12, so the order became operative on August 13[17][18].
The reasoning was not about the Second Amendment. Congress passed the NFA in 1934 using its power to tax. The law charged a $200 tax to make or transfer these items, and the registration paperwork existed to collect that tax[1][8]. In the 2025 tax-and-spending law known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Congress cut that tax to $0 starting January 1, 2026, but left the paperwork in place[1][15]. Judge James Wesley Hendrix held that once the tax hit zero, the registration rules had no tax left to support them — and that the Commerce Clause could not be used after the fact to prop up a law Congress wrote as a tax[2][15].
The most important dispute is not really over that logic. It is over what the registration paperwork was doing in practice. Gun-rights plaintiffs say it was an unconstitutional federal gun registry with no legal footing left[1][2]. Gun-control groups, which filed a brief backing the Justice Department, say the NFA process worked as a stricter-than-normal background check — including notifying local police — and that losing it makes people less safe[10][11]. Both sides are describing the same paperwork; they disagree about whether it was a tax form or a safety screen.
One widely blurred point: this is not a nationwide repeal. The injunction protects the named plaintiffs, members of the plaintiff organizations, and current and future customers of the plaintiff businesses[2][17]. Everyone else still faces the existing NFA process. Machine guns and destructive devices still carry the $200 tax and are untouched[2]. Reporting on August 12 said the Justice Department let the stay lapse without appealing or asking the Fifth Circuit to pause the order; that account rests on a lawmaker's announcement and gun-press reporting rather than a filed document this review confirmed[12][13].
The Event
On August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered final judgment for the plaintiffs in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, consolidated with Jensen v. ATF, in the San Angelo Division of the Northern District of Texas[2][3]. The judgment declared the National Firearms Act's registration and approval requirements unconstitutional as applied to suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and 'any other weapons,' and permanently enjoined the ATF and the Justice Department from enforcing 26 U.S.C. §§ 5812, 5822, 5841 and 5861 and related regulations against the covered parties[1][2]. The court stayed the judgment for seven days so the government could seek relief from the Fifth Circuit[17][18]. That stay ran out at the end of August 12, 2026, and reporting that day said no appeal or stay motion had been filed[12][14].
Undisputed Facts
- Congress passed the National Firearms Act in 1934 and imposed a $200 tax on making or transferring suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and 'any other weapons,' along with registration and approval paperwork[1][8].
- The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed in July 2025, reduced that making and transfer tax to $0 for those items effective January 1, 2026, while leaving the registration and approval requirements in the statute[1][15].
- Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered final judgment for the plaintiffs on August 5, 2026, in the Northern District of Texas, San Angelo Division[2][3].
- The ruling rests on the limits of Congress's Article I powers — chiefly the taxing power — and not on the Second Amendment[9][15].
- The judgment enjoins 26 U.S.C. §§ 5812, 5822, 5841 and 5861 and related regulations as applied to the four zero-tax categories[1][2].
- Machine guns and destructive devices still carry NFA taxes and are not covered by the ruling[2].
- The injunction runs to the named plaintiffs, members of the plaintiff organizations, and current and future customers of the plaintiff businesses; the state plaintiffs are covered when the state and its political subdivisions acquire such firearms, not their residents generally[2][17].
- The court found the Jensen plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the NFA's treatment of 'any other weapons'[2].
- Brady, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Giffords filed an amicus brief supporting the Justice Department's defense of the registration requirements[10][11].
- In June 2026, a Fifth Circuit panel held that suppressors are 'arms' protected by the Second Amendment, splitting with the Ninth Circuit — a separate case from this one[16].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- A law with its engine removed
- The NFA was built on the taxing power in 1934 because Congress in that era doubted it could ban these items outright. Registration was the collection mechanism for a $200 tax. When Congress zeroed that tax in the 2025 law but kept the paperwork, it left behind machinery with nothing to collect[1][15]. This lawsuit was the predictable consequence, and both sides saw it coming.
- Deregulating by not defending
- An administration can shrink a regulation without repealing it — by losing a case and declining to appeal. Reporting says DOJ let the stay lapse without going to the Fifth Circuit[12][14]. That produces a policy change with no vote in Congress and no appellate ruling, and it also means no higher court tests the reasoning.
- Party-limited relief creates a two-tier market
- Because the injunction runs to plaintiffs, members, and customers of the plaintiff companies, the practical rule now depends on which dealer you walk into and which group you joined[2][17]. That is an unstable arrangement, and it is why gun groups are pushing ATF for nationwide guidance and why more litigation is likely[13].
- State law is the floor that did not move
- Several states ban or tightly restrict suppressors and short-barreled firearms on their own authority. Nothing in this ruling touches those laws. For residents of those states, the federal change is close to meaningless[17].
Material realityA district court has held that specific NFA sections cannot be enforced against a defined set of people, and that order is now in effect[2][17]. It is one district judge's decision, unreviewed by any appeals court, and it binds parties rather than the country. Machine guns and destructive devices remain fully regulated[2]. Existing NFA records already collected do not vanish. A separate Fifth Circuit ruling in June 2026 held suppressors are protected 'arms,' splitting with the Ninth Circuit — which means the Supreme Court may eventually address suppressors on Second Amendment grounds in a different case entirely[16]. The one thing that changed physically on August 13 is that some buyers, at some dealers, can now take a suppressor home the same day instead of waiting for ATF approval[17].
Narrative as a weaponThree groups are actively shaping how this reads. Gun-rights litigants and their allied press want you to believe the registry is over — headlines say 'struck down,' 'ends a gun registry,' 'no more NFA,' and the party-limited scope tends to appear in paragraph nine or not at all[1][9]. Gun-control groups want you to believe a safety screen was quietly deleted; their strongest fact, the local-police notification step, is real and specific, but their framing skips the taxing-power holding entirely, which makes the ruling look arbitrary rather than reasoned[11]. The Justice Department is shaping the story by silence: not appealing lets an administration bank a deregulatory outcome without owning it as policy[12]. Mainstream wire coverage is the most accurate here and also the thinnest — it says enforcement is blocked, which is right, but rarely explains that a tax set to zero is what did it[5][19]. Note also what is absent: this review found no non-Western coverage in its search set, so nothing here should be read as a summary of how the story played abroad.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asTheir core claim is about the limits of federal power, not about guns. The federal government has only the powers the Constitution lists. Congress wrote the NFA as a tax law, and the registration paperwork existed to collect that tax. When Congress set the tax to $0, the collection machinery lost its reason to exist. You cannot keep the enforcement half of a tax after deleting the tax[1][2]. They add a second principle: the government may not rewrite a law's constitutional basis after the fact. If Congress wanted a commerce-power registry, it had to pass one — courts should not supply a new justification for old text[15]. Their practical analogy is a toll booth on a road where the toll has been repealed: at that point, stopping every driver is just a checkpoint[1].
WhyThey want to end federal registration of these items permanently, and they want a precedent that constrains agency authority beyond this one statute[1][2]. Manufacturers and dealers among the plaintiffs also gain directly: suppressor sales no longer require months-long ATF approval for their customers[17].
Impact on themCovered customers can buy a suppressor or short-barreled rifle without a Form 4 and without an entry in the ATF registry[17][14]. Gun Owners of America told the Attorney General it would transfer suppressors without registration once the stay lapsed[14]. The commercial plaintiffs gain a real market advantage: their customers are covered, while other dealers' customers are not[2].
Frames it asTheir position, argued below, is that the NFA remains valid because Congress has more than one power to stand on. The registration provisions regulate items that move in interstate commerce, so the Commerce Clause supports them independently of any tax[10]. On top of that, the Necessary and Proper Clause lets Congress keep the tracking framework that makes the surviving parts of the NFA — the machine gun and destructive device taxes, and the rules against illegal transfers — actually workable. Their institutional argument is about disruption: a 92-year-old federal framework should not be dismantled by one district court because a single tax rate changed[10][12].
WhyThe department has two pulls in different directions. As an institution, it defends federal statutes and resists narrowing its own enforcement authority. As part of an administration that campaigned on deregulating suppressors, it faces political pressure not to defend this particular registry[12][13]. Reporting described an internal split over whether to appeal[12].
Impact on themReporting on August 12 said the department let the seven-day stay lapse without appealing[12][14]. If accurate, ATF now must tell licensed dealers how to process transfers for covered buyers while enforcing the old rules for everyone else — two systems at the same counter[13]. Some members of Congress have pressed ATF to extend the relief nationwide rather than run a split system[13].
Frames it asThey argue the paperwork was never just a tax receipt. To clear an NFA transfer, a buyer submits fingerprints and photos, undergoes an FBI background check, and the local chief law enforcement officer is notified and can flag a reason to deny. Giffords chief counsel Adam Skaggs said that process 'effectively functioned as a heightened background check for NFA weapons, and that process is no longer enforceable' for covered buyers[19]. Their second argument is about tracing: the registry is how investigators connect a recovered suppressor or short-barreled gun to a buyer. Remove the record and that link disappears[10]. They also warn about the legal method — that a court can gut a public-safety law by treating a tax change as a repeal Congress never voted for[10]. Giffords called the decision 'a dangerous step backward for public safety'[19].
WhyThey want to preserve federal recordkeeping on the firearm categories they consider most dangerous, and to prevent the taxing-power argument from spreading to other gun laws[10].
Impact on themThey lost the district court case and, if the no-appeal reporting holds, lose the chance for Fifth Circuit review of this judgment[12]. Their remaining routes are state law and Congress. Note: this review did not verify specific crime-frequency figures for suppressor use, and neither side's numbers on that point were confirmed here.
Frames it asThe states argue that federal registration burdens their own police and agencies, and that a tax-based federal power cannot survive the tax's repeal[2]. Sources list Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming; one account describes the group as fourteen states, another lists fifteen names — a discrepancy this review could not resolve[2].
WhyState attorneys general in these states gain politically from a federalism win and from removing federal paperwork for their own agencies[2].
Impact on themTheir relief is narrow. The injunction covers the states and their political subdivisions when they acquire these firearms; it does not cover their residents[2]. Separately, several states ban or restrict suppressors and short-barreled guns under state law. Federal registration ending does not change a state ban, so a buyer's actual rights still depend on where they live[17].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 5.4
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Press | U.S. center (wire) | 2 | Frames it as enforcement being blocked — 'Texas judge rules that law regulating firearm suppressors and some guns can't be enforced.' | The careful 'can't be enforced' is the most accurate short framing available, and it avoids 'struck down.' But the wire copy gives little room to the tax-power mechanism, so a reader learns the outcome without learning why the judge ruled that way. |
| The Hill | U.S. center | 2 | 'Federal regulations on firearm silencers, some guns cannot stand, judge rules.' | Attributes the conclusion to the judge in the headline and stays in the language of regulation rather than rights. Light framing; the main gap is scope, which is where most coverage of this story fails. |
| Reason (Opinion) | U.S. libertarian (Volokh Conspiracy legal commentary) | 5 | 'Second Amendment Roundup: $0 Tax Left NFA with No Constitutional Basis.' | Openly a legal-argument column, and it states the holding more precisely than most news coverage. The headline still adopts the winning side's conclusion as fact rather than as the district court's holding pending any review. |
| Washington Examiner | U.S. right | 6 | 'Federal judge muzzles mafia-era law restricting suppressors and some firearms.' | 'Mafia-era' does real editorial work: it codes the 1934 statute as an antique aimed at gangsters rather than a live public-safety rule. 'Muzzles' is a pun that also frames the court as silencing the government. |
| Giffords | U.S. gun-control advocacy (founded by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords; foundation- and donor-funded) | 6 | Calls the decision 'a dangerous step backward for public safety' and stresses the loss of a 'heightened background check.' | The strongest and most specific counter-argument on the record — the local-law-enforcement notification detail is concrete and checkable. But the framing skips the court's actual holding entirely, so a reader never learns the ruling was about the taxing power. |
| NRA Institute for Legislative Action | U.S. gun-rights advocacy (NRA lobbying arm; membership- and donor-funded) | 7 | 'Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration Requirements... in NRA Case' — and elsewhere, 'A Victory That Ends A Gun Registry.' | 'Ends a gun registry' overstates a party-limited injunction, and 'in NRA case' is fundraising framing in a headline. This is a litigant describing its own win — useful for the record and the filings it posts, not for scope. |
| Breitbart | U.S. right | 7 | 'Gun Owners of America Notifies Justice Dept. It Will Transfer Suppressors Without NFA Registration Tonight.' | Reports a real event but stages it as a countdown and a dare, centering the advocacy group's confrontation rather than the legal question. Reader comes away thinking the registry ended nationwide at midnight. |
| The Daily Caller | U.S. right | 8 | 'Judge Takes Sledgehammer To National Firearms Act' and 'Piece Of Red Tape That's Tied Up Gun Owners For Decades Finally Gets Cut In Court.' | 'Sledgehammer,' 'red tape,' and 'finally' are all verdict words. The framing implies the whole NFA fell, when machine guns and destructive devices are untouched and the injunction is party-limited. |
References
- Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration Requirements for Suppressors, Short-Barreled Rifles, and Short-Barreled Shotguns in NRA Case — NRA Institute for Legislative Action · U.S. gun-rights lobbying arm; membership- and donor-funded; a party to the case
- Jensen v. ATF (Consolidated with Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF) — case page — Second Amendment Foundation · U.S. gun-rights litigation nonprofit; donor-funded; allied with plaintiffs
- Silencer Shop Found. v. BATFE — Memorandum Opinion and Order, N.D. Tex., San Angelo Division — U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (posted by Wiley Rein LLP) · Primary court document; hosted by a law firm with a firearms regulatory practice
- Jensen v. ATF — Final Judgment (Dkt. 137), August 5, 2026 — U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (posted by NRA Political Victory Fund) · Primary court document; host is an NRA-affiliated political committee
- Texas judge rules that law regulating firearm suppressors and some guns can't be enforced — Associated Press · U.S. nonprofit news cooperative; center-oriented wire service (read via The Washington Post)
- Federal regulations on firearm silencers, some guns cannot stand, judge rules — The Hill · U.S. political trade publication; center, Washington-insider audience
- Federal judge muzzles mafia-era law restricting suppressors and some firearms — Washington Examiner · U.S. conservative; owned by Clarity Media Group (Philip Anschutz)
- National Firearms Act no longer applies to silencers, judge rules — The Washington Times · U.S. conservative daily; founded and long funded by the Unification Church movement
- Piece Of Red Tape That's Tied Up Gun Owners For Decades Finally Gets Cut In Court — The Daily Caller · U.S. conservative digital outlet co-founded by Tucker Carlson
- Amicus Brief of Brady, Everytown, and Giffords — Jensen v. ATF (N.D. Tex. 25-cv-00223) — Giffords · U.S. gun-control advocacy organization; foundation- and donor-funded
- Gun-Control Groups Back DOJ in Silencer, Short-Barrel Rifle Case — The Reload · U.S. subscriber-funded firearms-policy newsletter; reports on both camps, audience skews gun-owning
- DOJ Divided Over Appealing Court Ruling That Guts Key NFA Provisions — Ammoland · U.S. firearms-industry trade and advocacy site; advertiser-supported, pro-gun-rights
- Congress Presses ATF to Broaden NFA Relief While DOJ Debates Appeal — Ammoland · U.S. firearms-industry trade and advocacy site; advertiser-supported, pro-gun-rights
- Gun Owners of America Notifies Justice Dept. It Will Transfer Suppressors Without NFA Registration Tonight — Breitbart · U.S. right-wing populist outlet
- Second Amendment Roundup: $0 Tax Left NFA with No Constitutional Basis — Reason · U.S. libertarian magazine published by Reason Foundation; signed legal commentary (Volokh Conspiracy)
- Federal Court: 'Suppressors are Arms' Cueing Up Supreme Court to Decide Split — Guns.com · U.S. firearms retail and news site; commercial, pro-gun-rights audience
- Understanding the August 5th ruling in the Silencer Shop Foundation v. BATFE case — Law Office of John Pierce, Esq. · U.S. Second Amendment plaintiffs' attorney; practitioner analysis, pro-gun-rights
- Federal Judge Strikes Down NFA Registration For Suppressors And SBRs — Concealed Carry Inc · U.S. firearms training company blog; pro-gun-rights
- Texas Judge Strikes Down Law Regulating Firearm Suppressors and Some Guns — Insurance Journal · U.S. insurance trade publication carrying wire copy; industry-funded, no gun-policy stance