BFA and partners ask court to strike down NFA rules on suppressors, short-barreled rifles

A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act tax stamp, in which Buckeye Firearms Association (BFA) is a plaintiff, has entered the next phase.

The case, Roberts v. ATF (2:26-CV-91-SCM), was filed in February 2026 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The complaint 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.

Plaintiffs on April 24 filed an amended complaint and a motion for summary judgment with the court, seeking to end the case without a full trial and asking the court for a simple but historic ruling: The NFA’s scheme of registration and regulatory web is now unconstitutional.

Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party "shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact" and "is entitled to judgment as a matter of law," the filed motion notes, adding that there are no factual issues at stake in this case.

Per the motion's conclusion:

"Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Count One, enter a declaratory judgment that the challenged NFA provisions and attendant regulations are unconstitutional and unenforceable as applied to the non-taxed firearms, and permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing those provisions and regulations to the extent set forth above. Plaintiffs also request that the Court grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on Count Two, enter a declaratory judgment that the challenged NFA provisions and attendant regulations are unconstitutional and unenforceable as to suppressors and short-barreled rifles under the Second Amendment, and permanently enjoin Defendants from enforcing those provisions and regulations to the extent set forth above."

Background

As BFA noted when the case was filed, 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 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.

Again, once Congress removed the taxes, it destroyed the NFA’s only constitutional foundation for regulating these items. With no tax left to enforce, the remaining registration, paperwork, and felony penalties can no longer be justified under the federal taxing power or any other enumerated power in the Constitution, so the NFA’s unconstitutional application to these now‑untaxed items must be struck down.

What victory would mean

A victory in Roberts v. ATF would represent one of the most significant shifts in federal firearms law in nearly a century. Because the case targets the very foundation of the NFA, the ripples would affect both the legal landscape and the daily lives of gun owners.

Here is what a win would likely mean in practical terms:

• Removal of the NFA registry for common Items. If the court rules that mandatory registration is unconstitutional, items like suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) would likely be removed from the NFA registry.
• Deregulation of suppressors. A major focus of this litigation is the classification of suppressors. A win would likely reclassify them as simple "firearm accessories" or "bearable arms."
• Setting a 'no-registry' precedent. Beyond just suppressors and SBRs, a victory in Roberts would establish a powerful legal precedent: The federal government cannot use its taxing power to justify a national gun registry.
• Impact on state laws. While Roberts is a federal case, a win based on Second Amendment grounds would likely flow down to the states.

For the general public, a victory would signal a transition in how "scary-looking" or specialized firearms technology is viewed, according to Maloney. It would move these items out of the category of "dangerous and unusual weapons" and into the category of "common tools for self-defense and recreation."

Essentially, it would treat a 10-inch barrel or a noise-reducing tube with the same legal scrutiny as a standard 16-inch hunting rifle, removing the "special permission" requirement that has existed since 1934.

BFA NEEDS YOUR HELP

BFA is proud to be a named plaintiff in this landmark litigation. For more than 20 years, BFA has advanced and protected your constitutional rights, standing between you and politicians who see the Second Amendment as a suggestion rather than a guarantee. While others talk about gun rights, BFA is in the trenches, filing the briefs and taking on the Department of Justice and the ATF to protect your interests.

We have played a direct role in every modern U.S. Supreme Court victory, passed multiple landmark bills in Ohio to bring gun rights into the 21st century, and now stand on the brink of shattering one of the most egregious infringements ever written into law.

Litigating against the federal government is a monumental task that requires significant resources. We are taking this fight all the way, but we need the continued support of our members to cross the finish line.

If you support eliminating the National Firearms Act and our ongoing fight for freedom, please make a donation TODAY! Your donation of $100, $50, or any amount you can afford will directly support our efforts at every level. Stand with us!

CLICK HERE TO DONATE

How else can you help?

• Stay Informed. We will continue to provide updates as this case moves toward oral arguments.
• Spread the word. Share this update with fellow gun owners who are tired of NFA overreach.
• Support the mission. Your memberships and donations directly fund the legal experts and filings required to win in federal court.

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.