According to the article, Justice Dept. leaves in place ruling that deregulates silencers, shotguns and certain rifles, some Americans can now possess short-barreled rifles, shotguns and silencers without registering them with the federal government, after the Trump administration declined to pause a Texas judge's ruling issued recently that deregulated those weapons.

The Ruling

The August 5 ruling by U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas gave the Justice Department a one-week deadline to request a stay before his ruling went into effect. 

That deadline has expired.

Gun-Control Group Brady’s Response

"Today, our government is failing us," said Kris Brown, the president of the gun-control group Brady. "At midnight, uniquely lethal weapons and devices — including silencers, short-barreled rifles, and shotguns — were deregulated for the first time in nearly a century."

The Justice Department still has time to appeal the ruling, however.

"The Department respects Americans' Second Amendment rights and is currently assessing the impact of the court's ruling," a department spokesperson said in a statement.

The National Firearms Act

The National Firearms Act is the primary law that regulates the purchase and sale of certain specialized firearms and related equipment, including short-barreled rifles and silencers. Enacted in 1934, it imposes taxes on these firearms and created a regulatory regime that requires people to register them with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

That regulatory structure also helps federal ATF agents trace the chain of firearm ownership when they are investigating gun-related crimes.

The “One Big Beautiful Bill”

In 2025, Congress included a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that no longer requires a $200 tax to be collected when a regulated firearm is transferred or made.

With that tax eliminated, Hendrix determined that the NFA's regulatory scheme for silencers, shotguns and short-barreled rifles is unconstitutional. 

"By zeroing out the transfer and making taxes on "any firearm" except for "a machinegun or a destructive device," the One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminated the constitutional basis for the NFA's regulation of those firearms," he wrote.

"The Department of Justice's decision is a failure to defend public safety," said Emma Brown, the executive director for the gun-control group Giffords.

"Congress put these safeguards in place nearly 100 years ago. As a result, silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns are rarely used in crimes today. But now, silencers and dangerous, easily concealable weapons can now easily get into the wrong hands and be used to harm innocent people," she added.

The lawsuit in Texas represents a consolidation of two separate cases. 

The First Case

The first case was brought by B&T USA, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Palmetto State Armory, Silencerco Weapons Research, Silencer Shop Foundation, 15 Republican-controlled states and several individuals.

The Second Case

The second case was brought by the Texas State Rifle Association (NRA's Texas affiliate), Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Hot Shots Custom, and several others.

The injunction by the judge only applies to the parties in the two cases, which could include anyone who is a member of the Gun Owners of America.

The Gun Owners of America and Silencer Shop’s Response

The Gun Owners of America and Silencer Shop celebrated the Justice Department's decision not to seek a stay of the ruling by announcing that two of its members had "lawfully acquired suppressors without complying with the currently enjoined registration requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934."

"This marks the first time since the NFA was enacted on June 26, 1934, that Americans can lawfully acquire suppressors without complying with the federal registration scheme. Our victory went into effect at 12:01 A.M. CT and we notified ATF and DOJ that we intended to conduct the first unregistered suppressor transfer in 92 years," the group added.

It is unclear whether the Justice Department will ultimately appeal the court's order.

Attorney General Todd Blanche’s Response

Attorney General Todd Blanche, in his written responses to questions from senators ahead of his confirmation, addressed several questions about his personal beliefs on firearms regulations.

In one response to the questions, he wrote: "I defer to the measured judgment of Congress on whether the NFA should be repealed or weakened. The Department's duty is to defend the constitutionality of the laws passed by this body."

Discussion Questions

  1. Based on the information provided in the article, from a procedural standpoint, why are some Americans now allowed to possess short-barreled rifles, shotguns and silencers without registering them with the federal government?

    As referenced in the article, some Americans now have this right because     the Trump administration declined to pause a Texas judge's ruling issued recently that deregulated those weapons. In this instance, procedural inaction by the president essentially “rubber-stamped” the Texas judge’s ruling. 

  2. What is the exact language of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

    The Second Amendment to the Constitution states:

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

    Although this is a succinctly worded law, its language has created bitterly debated, unresolved controversy to this day. Issues surrounding this wording, as well as the intent of the U.S. Congress in enacting the Second Amendment, include the following:

    (a)  Is the “well regulated Militia” wording of the Amendment to be read separate and apart from the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” wording, or is the right of the people to keep and bear arms to be read in the context of the need for a well-regulated militia to preserve and protect a “free State?”

    (b)  Even if one were to interpret the Second Amendment as recognizing an independent right of people to “keep and bear Arms” (as the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted it), is that right unlimited, or should it be subject to reasonable restrictions in a country of over 338 million people?

  3. Based on your review of the language of the Second Amendment, does the language itself require Americans to possess short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and silencers without registering them with the federal government?

    This is an opinion question, so student responses may vary.

    In your author’s opinion, it all comes down to how the Amendment itself is read; more specifically, whether it is read to address two distinct issues (first, a militia, and second, the right of the people to keep and bear arms) or whether the right of the people to keep and bear arms is only read in the context of the need for a “well regulated Militia.” The controversy continues, and it may never be resolved.