Motion Filed to Invalidate National Firearms Act Registration Rules in Federal Court

COVINGTON, Ky. — Plaintiffs in a major federal lawsuit moved to strike down key provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, filing a motion for summary judgment on April 24, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The case, Roberts v. ATF, argues that the law’s registration requirements for items such as firearm silencers and short-barreled rifles are unconstitutional following the elimination of the associated tax in 2025. For businesses operating in highly regulated sectors, including firearms manufacturing and sales, such fundamental challenges to long-standing federal laws create significant operational uncertainty. The lawsuit is one of three similar challenges supported by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). The central legal argument rests on a 2025 law, referred to in supporting documents as the One Big Beautiful Bill, which was signed by former President Trump. That legislation eliminated the $200 transfer and making tax that had been levied on certain firearms regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) since its inception. These items include suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and a category known as “any other weapons.” For nearly a century, the federal government’s authority to regulate these items under the NFA was constitutionally justified through Congress’s power to levy taxes. The plaintiffs now contend that with the tax set to zero, the legal underpinning for the entire regulatory scheme has vanished. Despite the tax elimination, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) continues to enforce the NFA’s burdensome registration requirements, which include submitting photographs and fingerprints to the federal government. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration that these remaining requirements exceed Congress’s enumerated powers and violate the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs in the Roberts case represent a coalition of individuals and organizations, including T.J. Roberts, Zachary Cockrell, Meridian Ordnance, LLC, the Buckeye Firearms Association, the Center for Human Liberty, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, and the American Suppressor Association Foundation. They argue that peaceable citizens should not be subjected to a federal registration scheme to own items they consider constitutionally protected. “The government’s historically claimed constitutional authority for the NFA was its ability to levy taxes,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in a statement. “Once President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill and taxes on silencers and short-barreled rifles were zeroed out, that authority no longer applied. Without it, the remaining registration requirements must be struck down as well.” In our experience, legal battles over foundational regulations are a double-edged sword for small and mid-sized companies. While a potential rollback of compliance requirements is appealing, the interim period is fraught with instability. Businesses must plan for inventory, manufacturing, and sales under a cloud of legal ambiguity, which can paralyze decision-making. This is precisely the environment where robust financial risk management becomes critical. Companies need to assess their exposure and develop contingency plans for drastically different regulatory outcomes. At C&S Finance Group LLC, we guide businesses through this complexity; learn more about our approach at csfinancegroup.com. This legal challenge is part of a broader, coordinated strategy by firearms rights organizations to dismantle the NFA’s regulatory framework. The SAF is also backing two other federal lawsuits making the same core argument: Brown v. ATF in the Eastern District of Missouri and Jensen v. ATF in the Northern District of Texas. The involvement of multiple advocacy groups across several jurisdictions indicates a concerted effort to force a judicial reckoning with the NFA’s post-tax-elimination status. “The Trump Administration can't keep forcing peaceable Americans to fingerprint, photograph, and register themselves just to own constitutionally protected tools like suppressors and short-barreled rifles,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We filed for summary judgment to end the government's unlawful NFA gun control scheme for good.” If the plaintiffs succeed, the ruling could fundamentally alter the firearms industry, particularly for manufacturers and dealers of NFA-regulated items. Removing the federal registration barrier could dramatically expand the market for suppressors and short-barreled firearms, items that have historically been niche products due to the complex and lengthy acquisition process. This would impact everything from supply chain logistics and manufacturing volumes to business formation for new companies seeking to enter a newly deregulated market segment. Conversely, if the court sides with the ATF, it would affirm the government’s power to maintain a registration system independent of its taxing authority, cementing the current compliance landscape. Ultimately, navigating these periods of legal flux requires proactive planning, not reactive panic. We advise clients to model different regulatory scenarios to understand potential impacts on cash flow and compliance costs. Waiting for a final court ruling before preparing is a recipe for being caught flat-footed, regardless of the outcome. With the motion for summary judgment now filed, the next steps in the case are set. According to the court’s schedule, briefing on the motion will continue through the end of July 2026. The court’s eventual ruling in this case, along with the parallel cases in Texas and Missouri, will be closely watched by the industry and is likely to be appealed, potentially setting the stage for a years-long legal battle that could reach the Supreme Court.