NFA Court Ruling Reshapes Compliance Following Wiley’s Successful Constitutional Challenge

On August 5, 2026, Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered final judgment and a permanent injunction in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, No. 6:25-CV-056 (consolidated with Jensen v. ATF). In its Memorandum Opinion and Order, the court held that specified provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) could no longer be sustained under the Taxing Clause or Congress’ other enumerated powers with respect to categories of NFA-regulated firearms – including suppressors – for which Congress reduced the federal transfer and making taxes to zero in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The court initially stayed the judgment for seven days from August 5, 2026, to permit the federal government to seek appellate relief. That stay expired at the end of the day on August 12.

The relief Wiley helped the plaintiffs obtain is substantial, but party-specific: It bars enforcement of the challenged provisions against the named plaintiffs, members of the associational plaintiffs, and, where applicable, the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions, and customers. Whether the injunction protects any particular transaction depends on a party’s relationship to the plaintiffs, not on the ruling’s existence alone. All Gun Control Act (GCA) provisions, including Form 4473 and background-check requirements, remain in effect for the firearms covered under the injunction.

This alert summarizes the scope of the injunction. The government’s position on many issues is unknown, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has not issued implementation guidance. It is unlikely that the ATF or the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) will issue guidance anytime soon. Unless otherwise noted, this alert assumes the Final Judgment remains in effect and has not been stayed, reversed, or modified on appeal, and it addresses federal law only – state law independently governs and varies significantly.

Plaintiff-Sourced Silencers Moving Through Distribution Chains

According to the judge’s opinion, commercial plaintiff’s silencers are covered through the entire distribution chain – distributor to dealer to end customer. The court held that “the injunction must reach the commercial plaintiffs’ customers – both current and future – to provide the commercial plaintiffs with complete, ‘forward-looking’ relief,” and grounded that holding in Mock v. Garland (“all of its downstream customers”) and NAGR v. Garland (“downstream customers of any commercial member of an Organizational Plaintiff”). Court Opinion at 61.

SBR and SBS Transfers to Non-Licensees Still Require a Form 4

Short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) cannot be transferred from Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to non-licensees without a Form 4. 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4) – an unchallenged Gun Control Act provision – independently prohibits a licensee from delivering an SBR or SBS to a non-licensee absent specific Attorney General authorization, which in practice has meant an approved Form 4, unless and until ATF offers another form or mechanism. The injunction removes the NFA requirement but does not supply the § 922(b)(4) authorization. Voluntary Form 4 processing is the only clean path for these items for the time being.

AOW Transfers to Non-Licensees

Any other weapons (AOWs) may be transferred from FFLs to non-licensees for parties covered by the Silencer Shop Foundation case, but not for plaintiffs in the Jensen case. Section 922(b)(4) lists only SBRs, SBSs, machine guns, and destructive devices, so AOWs – like silencers – face no GCA transfer block. The injunction’s AOW relief runs through the Silencer Shop Foundation plaintiffs only; the Jensen plaintiffs lack standing as to AOWs. Coverage should accordingly be traced through a Silencer Shop Foundation commercial plaintiff or association (e.g., GOA, FRAC, GOF).

Association Members Purchasing From Non-Covered Dealers

When a member of a plaintiff organization purchases a silencer sourced from non-covered entities at a non-covered dealer, the member’s own receipt and possession are covered. However the Form 4 requirement technically falls on the transferor (dealer). Thus, it is possible the non-covered FFL’s sale to a covered party could be outside the scope of the injunction.

Association Members Making Their Own SBRs

A member of a plaintiff organization who wishes to make an SBR from a pistol is covered as to the enjoined making, registration, and possession provisions (§§ 5822, 5841, 5861(d), (f)) – no Form 1 is required. The NFA should still require the maker to engrave their information on the SBR, as required by 5842(a). The Jensen plaintiffs are relieved from the marking requirements in 5842(b) and the serial number penalties in 5861(i). Please be aware that a majority of states prohibit the possession of SBRs unless they are registered or in compliance with the NFA.

Removal of NFA Items Received on a Form 3 and Transferred on a 4473

Covered FFLs that transfer a silencer to a covered party without a Form 4 will remain the registrant of record in the NFRTR. This is not unusual. For example, when NFA items are destroyed, the registrants can provide a letter to ATF to provide notice that the item was destroyed and no longer in the registrant’s possession, but there is no statutory requirement to do so. The same should apply here. Additionally, during compliance inspections, licensees can point to their A&D book as evidence that the firearm was disposed to another party in accordance with the GCA.

Post-Purchase Conversions by Non-Members Are Likely Not Covered

A non-member individual who purchases a pistol from a covered plaintiff and later decides to make an SBR out of it is likely not, without additional facts, covered by the injunction. Customer coverage is transactional – the court stated it covers customers’ specific “transactions with the plaintiffs and their commercial members” and expressly “does not allow” a customer to generally avoid the NFA for all firearms they “possess, transfer, sell, make, and manufacture.” Court Opinion at 61–62. The making is the customer’s own later act. The purchase of a non-NFA firearm is not covered by the injunction and does not extend relief to the customer. not part of the pistol purchase (which is not connected to the commercial plaintiff. This would not apply to someone who is covered as a member via an associational plaintiff. Note also that possessing the pistol together with conversion parts and intent can itself constitute constructive possession of an unregistered SBR.

Voluntary Form 4 Filings Remain Available

Nothing in the judgment prevents a person in a state that requires NFA registration under state law from voluntarily obtaining a Form 4 from ATF. The injunction bars ATF from enforcing the law against covered parties, not from processing voluntary applications, and the statute remains in force for non-parties. The caveat is practical: ATF has not issued post-ruling guidance and is not affirmatively ordered to process covered parties’ filings. Industry participants should watch for ATF’s implementation position; until then, voluntary filing should be the recommended path in registration-hook states (e.g., Georgia, Montana).

State-Plaintiff Status Does Not Cover Private Citizens

The participation of 15 states as plaintiffs does not extend coverage to residents or private citizens of those states. The state plaintiffs’ coverage runs to the states as governmental entities – the judgment extends to “the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions,” reflecting the states’ asserted injury of law-enforcement compliance costs. A city police department in a plaintiff state is covered; a private citizen of Texas or Idaho is not covered by residence alone and needs an independent hook – membership in an associational plaintiff or covered-customer status.

Dealer Coverage Is Transactional, Not Status-Based

An FFL dealer that sells products purchased from a commercial plaintiff is covered for those item but cannot transfer other NFA items purchased from non-covered entities to individuals without a Form 4. Coverage as a plaintiff’s customer is transactional – it attaches only to allow the commercial plaintiff to sell inventory. The court stated that customer coverage applies only to “customers’ transactions with the plaintiffs and their commercial members” and does not let a customer avoid the NFA “for all NFA firearms they possess, transfer, sell, make, and manufacture.” Court Opinion at 61–62. Items sourced from non-covered entities carry no coverage, so the dealer’s act of transferring them without an approved application remains enforceable against the dealer under § 5861(e) – even if the buyer happens to be covered, because the injunction protects parties, not transactions between a covered buyer and an uncovered seller’s inventory. To transfer non-plaintiff-sourced inventory without Form 4s, a dealer needs chain-independent coverage – commercial membership in an associational plaintiff (GOA, FRAC, GOF, TSRA, FPC, CCRKBA).

Wiley has a robust National Security Practice, which handles issues arising from the ATF, the Bureau of Industry and Security, the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, and related export control laws and regulations.