Coalition of Pro-Second Amendment Organizations Launches Federal Challenge Against NFA

Unified Legal Action Against 90-Year-Old Firearms Regulation

A coalition of prominent Second Amendment advocacy organizations has initiated a comprehensive federal lawsuit targeting the constitutional validity of the National Firearms Act. This coordinated legal challenge represents one of the most significant attacks on the 1934 legislation in recent years.

Case Details and Legal Framework

Brown v. ATF Filing Information

The lawsuit, officially designated as Brown v. ATF, was submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on August 1st. The case brings together multiple stakeholders in the firearms rights community under a single legal action aimed at dismantling key provisions of the nearly century-old regulatory framework.

Plaintiff Coalition

The legal challenge is spearheaded by four major Second Amendment organizations:

• American Suppressor Association
• Firearms Policy Coalition
• National Rifle Association
• Second Amendment Foundation

Supporting the organizational plaintiffs are individual parties, including Chris Brown and Allen Mayville, as well as Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, a St. Louis-based firearms retailer. The defendants named in the action include the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the U.S. Department of Justice, along with their respective leadership.

Constitutional Arguments Presented

Dual-Pronged Legal Strategy

The lawsuit advances its challenge through two primary constitutional arguments targeting the 1934 National Firearms Act:

Congressional Authority Challenge: The first argument contends that Congress exceeded its constitutional mandate when originally enacting the NFA, questioning the legislative branch's authority to implement such comprehensive firearms regulations.

Second Amendment Violation: The second prong directly challenges the Act as an infringement upon the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

Leadership Perspectives on the Challenge

Firearms Policy Coalition Statement

Brandon Combs, President of the Firearms Policy Coalition, provided a strongly worded assessment of the legal action in correspondence with Guns.com: "The National Firearms Act isn't just unconstitutional, it's a tyrannical abomination. Not only does the NFA violate your Second Amendment rights, but Congress never had the lawful authority to pass it in the first place. That makes it a double abuse of power, violating both the right to keep and bear arms and the hard limits the Constitution places on the federal government. We're proud to fight alongside our allies to end this corrupt, immoral law so peaceable Americans can exercise their rights when, where, and how they choose."

Second Amendment Foundation Position

Adam Kraut, Executive Director of the Second Amendment Foundation, focused on the regulatory implications of recent tax changes: "The National Firearms Act's registration scheme only exists to ensure that the tax on NFA firearms was paid. With Congress removing the tax on silencers, short-barreled firearms, and 'any other weapons,' the continued inclusion of these items in the NFA serves no purpose, except continuing to retain an impermissible hurdle to the exercise of one's constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We look forward to relegating this unconstitutional law to the history books."

Legal Arguments and Historical Context

Historical Precedent Analysis

The 31-page complaint examines the historical foundations of the NFA, arguing that no historical tradition supports the current regulatory framework. The legal document references a 1937 case that upheld the Act solely as an exercise of Congress's constitutional taxing power, establishing a crucial precedent for the current challenge.

Impact of Recent Tax Elimination

A central component of the lawsuit focuses on the elimination of transfer taxes on suppressors and short-barreled firearms, effective January 2026. With these taxes reduced to $0, the plaintiffs argue that the comprehensive registration requirements for manufacturing, transferring, receiving, or possessing such firearms lack constitutional justification.

Requested Legal Relief

Permanent Injunction Sought

The coalition is pursuing a permanent injunction that would prevent the federal government from enforcing NFA regulations and requirements on items no longer subject to taxation. This relief would effectively eliminate the registration process for affected firearms and accessories.

Scope of Impact

If successful, the lawsuit could fundamentally alter the regulatory landscape for:

• Suppressors (silencers)
• Short-barreled rifles and shotguns
• "Any other weapons" as defined under current NFA classifications

The legal challenge represents a strategic effort to capitalize on recent legislative changes while advancing broader constitutional arguments against federal firearms regulation.