Trump’s DOJ Defends NFA Registration, Betraying Gun Owners

The United States Department of Justice filed a response to a lawsuit brought by Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), Palmetto State Armory (PSA), the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC), Silencer Shop (SS), and B&T USA (B&T), challenging the constitutionality of regulating suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs).

Earlier this year, Congress passed President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB). This reconciliation bill sought to remove suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs from the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) list. Unfortunately for gun owners, the Senate Parliamentarian, Democrat Elizabeth MacDonough, rejected the bill, believing it was not a tax. Republicans would modify the bill to reduce the tax cost to $0, while maintaining all other requirements, such as fingerprinting, passport photos, registration, and background checks.

The $0 tax spurred numerous lawsuits from gun rights advocates. A tax must have a revenue-generating purpose. A $0 tax stamp does not generate any revenue. Democrats argue that the NFA is not a tax and that the tax is just there to help enforce the NFA restrictions. The United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) disagrees with these politicians’ view of the NFA. In Sonzinsky v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the NFA is primarily a tax, which is why it is constitutional.

Trump’s DOJ is hailed as the “most pro-gun DOJ ever,” but its response to the GOA lawsuit paints a different picture. The Justice Department took a more adversarial stance in the lawsuit, ignoring pleas from members of Congress such as Andrew Clyde. The DOJ is vigorously defending the NFA.

The DOJ claims that the NFA is still a tax, despite no revenue being collected. They say that, because it is still a tax in their view, the law is constitutional because the power is given to them through the Interstate Commerce Act. The DOJ also claims that the NFA is necessary because of the “concealability” of SBRs and SBSs. GOA argues that if all it took to regulate a firearm, then all handguns could be banned.

@AGPamBondi just made the argument for banning EVERY HANDGUN IN AMERICA. https://t.co/MNxLglGyPv pic.twitter.com/yIfCfxc6Qs

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) November 21, 2025

The DOJ also takes a page out of the playbook of anti-gun groups by calling short-barreled rifles and shotguns “weapons of war.” They argued that the NFA is needed to regulate these firearms because of their use by criminals. Even if that were the case, the Second Amendment does not have an exception for weapons of war.” Even the Supreme Court has acknowledged this fact. In United States v.  Miller, SCOTUS said SBSs could not be banned because they were not a “weapon of war.”

Our sources in the DOJ have confirmed that Attorney General (AG) Pam Bondi is well aware of this case and has signed off on the response. GOA also confirmed our source’s information. This defense of the NFA appears to be directly at odds with the President’s executive order on Second Amendment rights.

Gun Owners helped elect President Trump with the expectation that he would defend their right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment. Now, many of those same voters are wondering if they were just given lip service.

Your Moral Right To Keep & Bear Firearms In The United States

Gun Lobby Files Amicus Brief Supporting Challenge to Vermont’s 72-Hour ‘Cooling Off’ Waiting Period

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.