On October 9, 2025, a significant legal challenge was launched in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division. The lawsuit, Jenson v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), was filed by individuals John Jensen, Jeremy Neusch, and David Lynn Smith, along with businesses and organizations such as Hot Shots Custom LLC, the Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA), the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), National Rifle Association (NRA), American Suppressor Association (ASA), and the Second Amendment Foundation (FPC), targets the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), its Acting Director Daniel Driscoll, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and Attorney General Pam Bondi.
This case seeks to dismantle the National Firearms Act (NFA) registration requirements for certain firearms and suppressors, arguing that recent legislative changes have rendered them unconstitutional.
“This critical case is another step toward ending the immoral and unconstitutional National Firearms Act,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “FPC is proud to stand with our allies and drive our nationwide strategy to dismantle this federal ban scheme. We will continue to fight forward until all peaceable people can exercise their rights when, where, and how they choose.”
The NFA, enacted in 1934, imposed a $200 tax, equivalent to about $5,000 today, on the making and transfer of specific firearms, including suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs). It also introduced a detailed registration system to enforce this tax. The Supreme Court upheld the NFA as a taxing measure in Sonzinsky v. United States, describing it as an “interrelated statutory system for the taxation of certain classes of firearms.” However, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB), signed into law on July 4, 2025, eliminated these taxes, leaving the registration mandates intact.
Plaintiffs argue that without the tax, the registration requirements lack constitutional grounding under Congress’s taxing power or any other Article I authority, making the NFA’s application to these untaxed firearms invalid.
“Thanks to President Trump and his historic One Big Beautiful Bill, the NRA and gun-rights advocates successfully repealed the unnecessary and burdensome $200 tax imposed on law-abiding citizens through the National Firearms Act,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of NRA-ILA. “While the elimination of the NFA tax marked a significant victory, our work is far from over. The NRA will not rest until the National Firearms Act is eliminated in its entirety, and today’s filing in Texas marks another critical step in that process.”
The complaint highlights the practical burdens on plaintiffs. One plaintiff, John Jensen, a disabled hunter from Randall County, Texas, seeks to use suppressors to protect his hearing and adopt the use of SBRs for his medical condition, yet faces felony risks under the NFA. Neusch, from Potter County, and Smith share similar struggles, with Neusch waiting seven months for a suppressor approval. Hot Shots Custom LLC, a local gunsmithing business, reports lost sales because customers are reluctant to submit personal data for registration. The organizational plaintiffs represent members similarly affected, amplifying the case’s scope.
“I had emergency spinal cord surgery in 2020, which left me with physical limitations. I need to use a suppressor to reduce or tame the recoil of my rifle for self-defense,” Jensen told AmmoLand News. “I also have a hard time lifting a full-sized rifle with my support hand; therefore, I want to use an SBR to make it easier. Previously, I lived behind enemy lines in the people’s repugnant of New Jersey. Before my spinal cord injury, I enjoyed hunting and couldn’t legally own or use a suppressor in NJ, and I have permanent damage to my hearing. I pray that the court upholds the Second Amendment and adheres to the historical scrutiny of the Bruen decision for all Americans, but especially for those with disabilities.”
Beyond the tax argument, the lawsuit challenges the NFA under the Second Amendment, citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. This ruling presumes protection for all “arms” unless the government proves a historical tradition of regulation. The plaintiffs assert that suppressors and SBRs are neither dangerous nor unusual and lack a historical basis for registration, rendering the NFA’s scheme unconstitutional. They distinguish their case from United States v. Peterson, where the Fifth Circuit upheld suppressor regulations, noting a pending en banc review and reserving the right to argue that Peterson was wrongly decided.
“Since 1934, the NFA has imposed unconstitutional restrictions on law-abiding Texans and Americans,” said Knox Williams, President and Executive Director of the American Suppressor Association. “Now that the excise tax on suppressors and short-barreled rifles has been removed, the registration regime is unlawful. ASA is fighting to uphold the Second Amendment rights of all Americans, and we will not stop until suppressors and other lawful firearms and accessories are no longer subject to unconstitutional regulations or registration requirements.”
Jurisdiction is grounded in 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as the case involves federal law. Equitable relief is sought to prevent unconstitutional actions by federal entities, as supported by the Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB decision. The plaintiffs request declarations that the NFA is unconstitutional for untaxed firearms, specifically for suppressors and SBRs under the Second Amendment, and seek injunctions against the ATF’s enforcement of the NFA.
This case arrives at a pivotal moment. The OBBB’s tax repeal was a legislative win, but retaining registration smacks of bureaucratic inertia. For individuals like Jensen, who rely on these tools for practical use, and businesses like Hot Shots, the stakes are personal and economic.
The Second Amendment claim could set a precedent, potentially freeing a range of firearms from federal oversight if Bruen’s historical test prevails. The legal and firearms community is watching closely, with the outcome poised to reshape gun rights and federal authority.
Is the Department of Justice Fulfilling Their Role? It’s Time to go ‘Full Speed Ahead!’
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
It’s about G-d damned time!!!!
Molon Labe!
The first thing Trump should do is replace Blondi. If there is no tax on suppressors, then how can they continue to be regulated? grrr
For me, the elephant in the room is machine guns.
Are plaintiffs avoiding saying that part out loud, to try and avoid further scrutiny and blowback from the Left?
This case will probably win, but the judge will probably make it only apply to the group of plaintiffs.
the fact that the court let the tax stand at an unreasonable rate shows how criminal the court itself was ,and allowing jim crow as law was bad , make the tax so high that ordinary people could not pay it …the very tax rate made this unconstitutional ,could you imagine same tax rate on scotch or a wine cooler?
It took a constitutional amendment to eliminate poll taxes. Think about this for a minute. From the founding of our constitutional republic until the 1960s, poll taxing in one form or another was always legal. This is a loophole that should never have existed, but has long been exploited to deny, curtail, or control our civil rights. A right so regulated is not a true right; it becomes a privilege granted by bureaucratic whim. The fact that the transfer and making taxes on NFAs will drop to zero after this year’s end is not going to stop the feds from… Read more »
I wish to Hell people would stop with the hyperbolic bullshit titles to articles! NO ONE is suing to “End the NFA Once and for All”! They are suing to remove from the NFA certain items that have just recently been exempted from the tax requirement of the NFA, so that said items no longer have to be registered with the BATFE. This does not “end” the NFA!!! It still leaves full-autos & “destructive devices” subject to its unconstitutional regime.
Please leave the misleading, hyperbolic bullshit to the Dummycrats & their media pets – it is, after all, their forte!
Mark W. Smith explains it better than I can. He should be on the S. CT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IoI54cFcdM
Hey, John Crump … what is that interesting little firearm in the photo?