BREAKING NEWS: BFA joins federal lawsuit challenging ATF tax stamp requirement on suppressors, short-barreled rifles
On Feb. 26, 2026, Buckeye Firearms Association (BFA) joined plaintiffs in filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).
The case, Roberts v. ATF (2:26-CV-91-SCM), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky.
Until the passage of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, the NFA had imposed a $200 excise tax ("tax stamp") on suppressors and on short-barreled rifles and required a tax-enforcement registration requirement on those items.
Trump's bill included both the SHORT Act and the Hearing Protection Act and would have eliminated the NFA tax and registration. At the time, BFA joined a long list of organizations nationwide in signing an open letter to two U.S. House of Representatives committees, insisting that Congress eliminate unjust restrictions imposed by the NFA.
The bill passed the House, but Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, a Democrat appointed during the Harry Reid era, on July 3 stripped both pro-gun measures from the legislation, asserting that they exceeded the provisions of the Byrd rule, which governs reconciliation measures, because they weren't directly tax related. All that remained was a reduction of the tax stamp from $200 to $0, effective Jan. 1, 2026.
The good news is that MacDonough's actions have resulted in lawsuits challenging the remaining registration requirements for the affected arms under the NFA as unconstitutional because Congress passed the NFA in 1934, specifically premised on its enumerated power to “lay and collect taxes."
This Roberts complaint, which BFA has signed onto as a plaintiff, argues that because the tax has been eliminated, the NFA’s tax-stamp requirement is no longer justified under Congress’ taxing power or under any other authority granted under Article I of the U.S. Constitution.
The complaint also asserts that the NFA registration requirement for suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court has established that any regulation on arms-bearing conduct must be consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. As the complaint argues, there is no tradition that supports the NFA’s registration requirement for protected arms such as suppressors and short-barreled rifles.
The plaintiffs in the case include Buckeye Firearms Association, American Suppressor Association Foundation, Center for Human Liberty, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Meridian Ordnance, and two individuals. The case represents the third lawsuit supported by the NRA, ASA, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation challenging the NFA since the Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the tax for NFA items.
Dean Rieck, BFA executive director, said, "This has the potential to be another landmark case for Buckeye Firearms Association.
"BFA has been directly involved in a variety of crucial Second Amendment cases," said Rieck, "including Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), and Bruen (2022), all game-changing decisions for gun rights in America. If we win the Roberts case, it will yet another major victory, not just for Ohioans, but for all U.S. citizens who value and respect the Constitution."
Roberts builds upon Brown v. ATF, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in August 2025, and Jensen v. ATF, which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in October 2025.
Joe D. "Buck" Ruth, a pen name for Scott Hummel, is a longtime small-game hunter and gun owner who spent nearly three decades in the news industry. He is the website and social-media manager for Buckeye Firearms Association.
- 33 reads
