Multi-State Coalition Mounts Constitutional Challenge Against National Firearms Act

Fifteen Attorneys General Unite in Federal Court Battle

A substantial coalition of state attorneys general representing nearly one-third of the United States has joined forces in a comprehensive legal challenge targeting the constitutional foundation of the National Firearms Act (NFA). The expanded litigation demonstrates growing state-level resistance to federal firearms regulations that plaintiffs claim have lost their constitutional basis.

Legal Challenge Gains Momentum with Multi-State Support

Expanded Coalition Filing

The amended complaint, submitted on August 8 in the federal case Silencer Shop Foundation et al v. ATF, now encompasses participation from 15 state governments. This significant expansion reflects widespread concern among state officials regarding the current legal standing of the decades-old federal legislation.

State Participants and Leadership

The legal challenge is spearheaded by Texas and South Carolina, with additional support from attorneys general representing Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. These state officials have aligned themselves with prominent firearms industry organizations and advocacy groups in pursuing the federal court action.

Private Sector and Advocacy Group Involvement

Joining the state coalition are several influential organizations within the firearms community, including Gun Owners of America, the Gun Owners Foundation, Palmetto State Armory, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Silencer Shop, and B&T USA. This diverse group of plaintiffs represents both commercial and advocacy interests in challenging federal enforcement authority.

Historical Context and Constitutional Foundation

Origins of the National Firearms Act

The National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934, establishing a comprehensive regulatory framework that imposed up to a $200 tax on the manufacture and transfer of specific categories of firearms. This legislation represented one of the earliest federal attempts to regulate firearms ownership through the taxation power granted to Congress under the Constitution.

Supreme Court Precedent

The constitutional validity of the NFA received judicial validation in 1937 when the Supreme Court ruled that the tax structure fell within Congress's legitimate taxing authority. This precedent established the legal foundation that has supported the Act's enforcement for nearly nine decades.

The Constitutional Challenge

Impact of Recent Legislation

The crux of the current legal challenge centers on the effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which fundamentally altered the NFA's tax structure. Under this recent legislation, the traditional $200 tax has been eliminated for suppressors and short-barreled firearms, creating what plaintiffs argue is a constitutional crisis for the remaining regulatory framework.

Legal Arguments Against Continued Enforcement

The plaintiffs contend that by removing the tax component from the majority of NFA-regulated firearms, Congress has inadvertently undermined the constitutional authority that originally justified the Act's existence. Their legal argument suggests that without the taxing power as justification, the registration requirements and restrictions now lack constitutional foundation.

Court Filing Details

The complaint filed in federal court in the Northern District of Texas presents a detailed constitutional argument: "The NFA's authors left no doubt that the NFA was an exercise of the taxing power, and the Supreme Court upheld it on that basis. But the NFA no longer imposes any tax on the vast majority of firearms it purports to regulate. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which Congress enacted and the President signed on July 4, 2025, zeroes the making and transfer tax on nearly all NFA-regulated firearms. That means the constitutional foundation on which the NFA rested has dissolved."

The filing continues: "With respect to the untaxed firearms, the Act is now unconstitutional."

Specific Relief Sought

Scope of Requested Court Action

The plaintiffs are pursuing comprehensive judicial relief that would fundamentally reshape federal firearms regulation. Their petition requests a court declaration that the NFA has become unconstitutional regarding all firearms that no longer carry the traditional tax burden—encompassing all categories except machine guns and destructive devices.

Enforcement Injunction Request

Beyond the constitutional declaration, the coalition seeks an injunction that would prevent federal agencies from enforcing what they characterize as unconstitutional provisions of the NFA. This relief would effectively halt current regulatory practices for the affected firearm categories while the legal challenge proceeds.

Parallel Legal Proceedings

Additional Federal Court Challenge

The multi-state lawsuit represents one component of a broader legal strategy challenging NFA enforcement. A parallel case, Brown v. ATF, was initiated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on August 1, demonstrating the coordinated nature of the constitutional challenge.

Supporting Organizations in Missouri Case

The Missouri litigation includes participation from several major firearms rights organizations: the American Suppressor Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, National Rifle Association, and Second Amendment Foundation. These national organizations have joined with a St. Louis gun shop and two individual plaintiffs in pursuing similar constitutional arguments.

Implications for Federal Firearms Policy

This multi-pronged legal challenge represents a significant test of federal authority in firearms regulation, potentially reshaping the landscape of gun policy if successful. The outcome could establish new precedents regarding the constitutional limits of federal regulatory power when traditional justifications are altered by subsequent legislation.