LUBBOCK, Texas, Aug. 15 (Our Texas Times) — A federal judge in Texas has blocked enforcement of key National Firearms Act requirements for the parties covered by his order, allowing gun rights groups to promote suppressor purchases without the federal registration process that has been required for decades.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix took effect Aug. 13 after the Justice Department did not seek an emergency stay during a seven-day window set by the court. The department said it was assessing the decision and respected Americans’ Second Amendment rights. It has not been established that the department has given up its right to file a later appeal.
The order is not a nationwide injunction. It applies to the plaintiffs and specified people, businesses, customers or members connected to them. It also covers state agencies and political subdivisions in 15 states that joined the lawsuit. The order’s full list of covered parties was not identified in the available records.
What did the judge change?
The case involves parts of the National Firearms Act, or NFA, a 1934 law regulating certain firearms, including suppressors, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns.
A suppressor, sometimes called a silencer, is a device attached to a firearm to reduce the sound of a gunshot. Under the NFA, people generally had to register covered firearms and pay a special tax before making or transferring them. The law also required an additional federal review process.
Congress and President Donald Trump later eliminated the tax through legislation known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Hendrix ruled that, after the tax was removed, the government could no longer rely on its taxing power to justify the challenged registration and related requirements.
“The challenged NFA provisions are unconstitutional,” Hendrix wrote in his Aug. 5 opinion. He also wrote that “no longer can the challenged NFA provisions be justified — as they have been for nearly 90 years — under Congress’s taxing power.”
Hendrix said any effort to revise the NFA to make it constitutional must come from Congress rather than the court.
Federal background checks still apply under the legal framework described in the court ruling and related records. The decision removed the NFA registration requirement and associated review process only for those covered by the order; it did not eliminate the broader federal firearms background-check system.
Why did the ruling take effect?
Hendrix delayed the order’s effect for seven days so the Justice Department could seek emergency relief. That period ended Aug. 13 without the department filing an emergency appeal or requesting a stay, according to court-procedure records described by the parties.
A stay would have paused the ruling while the case continued. The department may still pursue an appeal through the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, although the available reports differ about the remaining deadline. The records available for this report do not establish whether a later appeal has been filed or whether the appeals court has taken action.
The Justice Department has said it is evaluating the ruling’s impact. Its public statement did not say that the administration had permanently accepted the decision.
How are gun rights groups using the decision?
Gun Owners of America said two members completed suppressor purchases shortly after midnight Aug. 13 at Silencer Shop, a federal firearms licensee in Leander, Texas. The purchasers were identified as Brandon Herrera and Texas state Rep. Wes Virdell, a Republican from Brady.
The group said the buyers did not complete NFA registration before receiving the suppressors. GOA described the transfers as the first lawful purchases without NFA registration since the law was enacted in 1934. That historical claim has not been independently verified in the available records.
Aidan Johnston, GOA’s federal affairs director, called the purchases a major test of the ruling. Erich Pratt, another GOA official, said members were putting the decision “into action” and argued that federal registration of constitutionally protected arms should end.
Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Georgia Republican, called the ruling “a monumental day for the country and a monumental day for the Second Amendment.” Rep. Chip Roy, an Austin Republican, was among the lawmakers who supported pressure on the administration not to seek immediate relief, according to statements cited in the case coverage.
Other gun rights organizations, including the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation, also welcomed Hendrix’s ruling.
Why are opponents concerned?
Giffords and its legal arm, Giffords Law Center, opposed the decision. Emma Brown of Giffords called the government’s decision not to pursue an immediate appeal “a failure to defend public safety.”
The groups argue that removing registration and related requirements for suppressors and other NFA-regulated firearms could weaken safeguards intended to track particularly regulated weapons. The court’s order, however, limited the relief to the parties and entities it identified rather than applying the ruling to every gun owner nationwide.
That limited reach creates practical questions for dealers, customers and government agencies. The order includes language involving associated parties, members and future customers, but the available records do not provide a complete explanation of who qualifies in every situation. The case could also change if the Justice Department appeals or if a higher court issues a stay.
For now, the Texas ruling has allowed gun rights groups to claim a concrete policy victory: Covered parties within the order’s reach can seek the affected firearms without completing the NFA registration process, while federal background-check rules remain in place and the broader legal fight continues.
