Texas Judge Guts 90-Year Gun Law

Pistol and judge's gavel on dark surface — TEXAS GUN LAW IN TROUBLE

A Texas judge just cracked open a 90-year-old gun law and told Washington its favorite excuse for regulating suppressors no longer counts.

Story Snapshot

A federal judge in Texas ruled key parts of the National Firearms Act cannot be enforced for now-untaxed suppressors and certain short-barreled guns.
The judge said Congress lost its taxing-power basis once it dropped the old $200 tax on these items to zero.
The ruling protects plaintiffs from federal registration and approval rules and could influence gun policy in at least fifteen states.
The case pushes a deeper question: how far can Washington go when its original constitutional hook for a law disappears.

A near-century-old gun law meets a changed Congress

A federal judge in the Northern District of Texas, James Wesley Hendrix, ruled that major parts of the National Firearms Act of 1934 cannot be enforced against certain gun owners and states because Congress removed the very tax that once justified those rules.

The law had long treated suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and a few other firearms as special threats that required a tax payment and federal approval before anyone could make or transfer them.

Congress changed the game in 2025 when it passed what gun rights advocates call the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which dropped the traditional $200 tax on these items to zero while leaving the registration and approval system in place.

For nearly ninety years, Washington defended the National Firearms Act by saying it was a tax bill, not a direct gun ban. Judge Hendrix looked at that tax, now set at zero, and said that argument no longer works under the Constitution.

Texas judge rules that law regulating firearm suppressors and some guns can’t be enforced https://t.co/5Rije7aNh8

— O.C. Register (@ocregister) August 5, 2026

Why the taxing power mattered and why the judge said it is gone

The United States Constitution gives Congress a taxing power that the Supreme Court has sometimes allowed to carry heavy rules, as long as those rules stay tied to raising revenue.

The National Firearms Act originally fit that mold because people had to pay a steep tax, apply for federal permission, and enter a federal registry to own suppressors or certain short-barreled firearms. The burden was heavy, but the structure looked like a tax system wrapped around dangerous weapons after the gangster era of the 1930s.

Judge Hendrix wrote that “no longer can the challenged National Firearms Act provisions be justified” under that taxing power once Congress itself made the tax zero dollars. With no money changing hands, the law now looks like pure regulation, not taxation.

If Congress wants to regulate suppressors directly, it must do so under a different clearly stated power and face the Second Amendment head-on, not hide behind a tax that no one pays anymore.

What the ruling does and who it reaches right now

The ruling blocks the federal government from enforcing registration, transfer approval, and making approval requirements under the National Firearms Act against the plaintiffs who challenged the law, including Kansas and fourteen other states backing the lawsuit.

Those states argued that Washington kept running a gun registry system even after Congress abandoned the tax that was supposed to justify it, turning the law into an unconstitutional burden on ordinary gun owners and manufacturers.

Gun rights groups such as Firearms Policy Coalition celebrated the decision as a “major victory” because it strikes at the core of the National Firearms Act for items whose taxes are now set to zero.

The win speaks to a simple principle: if you stop calling something a tax by dropping the dollar amount to nothing, you cannot keep treating people like tax cheats when they do not follow the old rules tied to that tax. The judge did not erase every part of the National Firearms Act but drove a wedge into its foundation for these specific weapons.

How this battle fits the wider fight over gun rights and federal reach

This dispute joins a broader pattern where gun owners, states, and advocacy groups test whether old gun laws still rest on a valid constitutional power after Congress tinkers with them.

For years, gun-rights plaintiffs attacked the idea that Washington can keep strict registration and approval in place once the tax logic goes away, while federal lawyers argued that long-standing rules should survive because they promote safety and track dangerous items. Judge Hendrix’s decision gives the first clear answer on the tax question for these now-untaxed items.

From this angle, the case also reflects growing pushback against agencies that run massive databases and approval systems without fresh debate in Congress.

Many Americans see suppressors as tools that reduce hearing damage and improve accuracy, not as movie-style silencers for hit men.

When Washington treats those tools like near-contraband under a tax that no longer exists, it clashes with both everyday gun culture and the text of the Constitution. This ruling tells lawmakers they cannot duck that clash forever.

What comes next for gun owners, states, and Washington

The fight is far from over. The federal government will almost certainly appeal, and higher courts will decide whether they agree that a zero-dollar tax breaks the link to the taxing power that once supported the National Firearms Act’s heavy rules.

Other courts, including the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, have sometimes sided with federal enforcement when states tried to carve out special zones for “made in state” suppressors, showing that judges do not all see these battles the same way.

For gun owners and conservative readers, the practical lesson is clear: the legal ground under legacy gun laws is shifting fast. States are testing Washington’s reach, Congress is changing old taxes, and judges are starting to ask whether agencies can keep running vast approval systems on autopilot.

This Texas ruling does not settle every Second Amendment question. It does something just as important in today’s climate: it reminds Washington that when it changes the deal on paper, courts can and will change the deal in practice.