1112px-Mauser_wz_98,_sawed-off,_Muzeum_Orła_Białego.jpg

A sawn-off Mauser 98

Gun rights groups sue ATF, DOJ over National Firearms Act regulations following elimination of taxes on certain firearms

ST. LOUIS – A coalition of individuals, a Missouri firearms business and national gun rights organizations has filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) registration requirements for certain firearms, arguing that recent changes in federal law have removed the statute’s original tax-based justification.

The plaintiffs, Chris Brown, Allen Mayville, Prime Protection STL, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), Firearms Policy Coalition Inc. (FPC), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and American Suppressor Association (ASA), filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), its Acting Director Daniel P. Driscoll, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi .

The suit centers on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (BBB), signed into law July 4, which eliminated the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” defined under the NFA, while leaving the law’s comprehensive registration and regulatory requirements in place. 

The plaintiffs contend that because Congress initially enacted the NFA in 1934 under its taxing power — and courts upheld it as “only a taxing measure” — the remaining requirements now lack constitutional grounding for items no longer subject to the tax.

The plaintiffs further argue that the NFA’s ongoing restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles violate the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which held that regulations on protected arms must be consistent with historical tradition. 

They assert there is no such tradition for the type of registration and regulation imposed by the NFA.

Brown, a firearms owner and longtime Second Amendment advocate, says he has refrained from transferring a suppressor he owns or purchasing a short-barreled rifle due to the burdens of the NFA process. 

He claims the law deters private sales and forces owners to provide extensive personal information to the federal government. Mayville, also a firearms owner, says he has been dissuaded from purchasing another suppressor because of the same regulatory requirements.

Prime Protection STL, a Black-owned federally licensed firearms dealer in Bridgeton, alleges it has avoided selling NFA-regulated items entirely because its customers — especially from the Black community — are unwilling to comply with the law’s “intrusive requirements.” 

The shop says that without the restrictions, it would sell suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns without going through the NFA process.

The national gun rights groups joining the lawsuit each claim to represent members adversely affected by the law’s continued enforcement. 

The NRA describes itself as the nation’s oldest civil rights organization and says it is bringing the action on behalf of members nationwide, including the individual and business plaintiffs. FPC, SAF, and ASA also assert that their members face direct harm from the NFA provisions.

The complaint alleges that compliance with the NFA imposes significant costs and delays, with applicants required to submit fingerprints, photographs, and detailed firearm descriptions, then wait months for ATF approval. 

The plaintiffs cite their own experiences, including nearly ten-month waits for suppressor purchases, as evidence of the law’s burdens. They contend these requirements are akin to those imposed on individuals charged with crimes and constitute an undue infringement on lawful firearm owners.

The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment that the NFA is unconstitutional as applied to untaxed firearms and, separately, that its regulations on suppressors and short-barreled rifles violate the Second Amendment. 

The plaintiffs are also asking the court to permanently block enforcement of those provisions and any related regulations.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division case number: 4:25-cv-01162

More News