ATF Announces It Will Cease Enforcing NFA Provisions Related to Short-Barreled Rifles/Shotguns, Suppressors, and “Other Weapons”
(October 11, 2026)
The Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives (“ATF”) on Oct. 9, 2026 issued official guidance that, effective immediately, it will cease enforcement of the following National Firearms Act (“NFA”) provisions as applied only to short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, “silencers”/suppressors, and “any other weapon[s]” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e):
- The requirement to apply and obtain prior approval to make NFA firearms;
- The requirement of those engaged in the business to register NFA firearms within 24 hours of making;
- The requirement to apply and obtain prior approval to transfer NFA firearms;
- The requirement to register a firearm in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record;
- The various prohibitions on making, receiving, transferring, and possessing unregistered NFA firearms, other than the prohibitions in 26 U.S.C. § 5861(h) & (k) (prohibiting possession of firearms with obliterated serial numbers or those illegally imported);
- The prohibition against transporting unregistered NFA firearms in interstate commerce (26 U.S.C. § 5861(j));
- The NFA requirement to mark all NFA firearms, and
- Any other NFA provision specifically enjoined by the district court’s judgment.
This cessation of enforcement only extends to firearms for which Congress eliminated the making and transfer taxes pursuant to the One Big Beautiful Bill law. Machine guns and destructive devices remain taxable items and subject to all NFA provisions. Also, those “engaged in the business” must also continue to pay special (occupational) taxes.
It is important to note that this decision only applies to cessation of federal enforcement of the NFA provisions and that any state or local ordinances that replicate or are otherwise substantially similar to the listed NFA requirements are not affected by this announcement, meaning that while ATF has chosen to no longer enforce these rules, firearm owners may still be subject to any such applicable state and local regulations. For this reason, ATF has also announced that it will continue to accept voluntary registration of affected firearms under the existing NFA framework in order to facilitate owner’s compliance with such state and local ordinances.
Also, it is very important to note that this guidance does not constitute a formal repeal of the NFA provisions in question, and it is entirely possible that future ATF Directors, at the behest of successor Presidential administrations, may choose to resume enforcement action at a future date.
More specific guidance on ATF’s decision, including FAQ, can be found here: Update to NFA Transfer Guidance | ATF
.
*************************************************************************************
Fifth Circuit Strikes Down Federal Ban on Interstate Handgun Sales (21 Sept. 2026)
In a 2–1 decision issued late last week (Sept. 18, 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the federal ban on direct interstate handgun sales violates the Second Amendment, reversing a lower court’s previous dismissal of the case.
The lawsuit, Elite Precision Customs v. ATF, was filed by Texas firearms dealer Elite Precision Customs, out‑of‑state customers Tim Herron (Arizona) and Freddie Blish (New Mexico), and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) challenging provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibit licensed dealers from selling handguns directly to buyers in another state. Judge Jerry E. Smith, who authored the majority opinion, held that “[t]he ban implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment because the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to purchase firearms.” The Court ruled that, under the Supreme Court’s Bruen test, the government must show the law is consistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation and then determined that there is no adequate historical analogue for a modern, categorical ban on interstate handgun sales, rejecting the government’s argument that colonial and early state laws justified the federal restriction. The ruling emphasized that “the Ban sullies the plain text of the Second Amendment and is inconsistent with the nation’s tradition of firearms regulation”. The Fifth Circuit also rejected the government’s argument that the law merely regulates commercial sales, noting that the right to acquire firearms is part of the Second Amendment, irrespective of the means by which those firearms are legally acquired.
The decision invalidates the federal prohibition on direct interstate handgun sales within the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana & Mississippi, and, more importantly, opens the door for out‑of‑state handgun purchases from licensed dealers without the current federal transfer hurdles. This ruling does not address other federal gun laws and may be subject to further litigation, including potential appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, in which case those developments will be reported.
.
*************************************************************************************
FEDERAL COURT INVALIDATES DELAWARE LAW BANNING “GHOST GUNS” AND REGULATING “FRAMES & RECEIVERS” AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL (16 Sept 2026)
Late last week a federal judge in Delaware ruled that the state’s ban on so-called “ghost guns” and similarly unserialized frames and receivers was unconstitutional. Delaware was one of several states that have passed laws that banned unserialized firearms built from legal parts as “illegal”, and similarly regulated the sale, possession and transfer of certain gun parts, namely frames and receivers, that can be used to build such guns, to require that such parts contain serial numbers and the name of the manufacturer.
In its opinion, the court noted that (1) so-called “ghost guns” are firearms that qualify as “arms” protected by the 2nd Amendment, and (2) frames and receivers, being “necessary for a gun to function as intended”, qualify as “arms”, and, as such, are also protected under the Second Amendment. The Court then applied the Bruen “test” to the state law which regulated these arms and found that the state of Delaware has failed to show a historical tradition of regulation that justifies banning people from making their own unserialized firearms or owning unserialized parts with which to do so.
This ruling follows on a couple of other recent federal court decisions which support the position that such “frame and receiver rules”, including the ATF’s, and similar “ghost gun” bans violate the protections of the 2nd Amendment. First, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, issued a ruling last month finding that the Biden-era ATF rule was unconstitutional on both Fifth Amendment and Second Amendment grounds. Within a week of that ruling out of Texas, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that a lawsuit brought by Attorney General of California and the Giffords Law Center against the current ATF demanding clarification to tighten the regulations on so-called “ghost guns” should be dismissed for lack of standing.
.
*************************************************************************************
FEDERAL COURT FINDS NFA REGULATION OF SUPPRESSORS, SBRs & SBSs EXCEEDS CONGRESS’ CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY (06 AUG 2026)
Yesterday, August 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a ruling that, since Congress has eliminated the National Firearms Act’s (the “NFA”) transfer tax provisions applicable to suppressors, short-barreled rifles (“SBRs”), and short-barreled shotguns (“SBSs”), its effective repudiation of its own purported authority to regulate these items means it now lacks the Constitutional authority to regulate them under the NFA, and, accordingly, the registration and approval requirements for suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs contained within the NFA exceed Congress’s constitutional authority after and are therefore invalid.
The court concluded that Congress enacted the NFA under the auspices of its authority to levy taxes and that the statute’s extensive regulatory requirements, including registration, ATF review & approval, and related criminal penalties, were constitutionally permissible only because they aided the collection of taxes. The court held that once Congress eliminated the transfer taxes for suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs in last year’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” Act, the constitutional foundation for those regulatory provisions disappeared.
The court rejected the government’s argument that the remaining regulations could still be justified under the “Commerce” Clause or the “Necessary and Proper” Clause of the Constitution, holding that the history of the NFA and Congress’ own words and actions clearly indicate that Congress enacted the challenged provisions solely pursuant to its taxation authority. Under this reasoning, the court held the challenged provisions unconstitutional on Article I enumerated-powers grounds, while declining to address the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment violation claims.
The Court stayed the effect of the judgment for seven (7) days to allow the government an opportunity to seek relief from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the government probably will do.
.
*************************************************************************************
DOJ & ATF Announce Extensive Rulemaking to Revise Firearm Regulatory Framework (10 May 2024)
Recently the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives (ATF) announced sweeping changes to the framework by which firearms are regulated in the United States. In a joint press conference in late April, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche and newly confirmed ATF Director Robert Cekada announced thirty-four (34) proposed rules, including the rescission of the “stabilizing brace” and “engaged in the business” rules, redefining “machine guns” in light of recent Supreme Court action, updates to Form 4473 for the commercial transfer of firearms, clarifying interstate transportation of firearms under the Gun Control Act, and revision to recordkeeping requirements for Federal Firearms Licensees.
The proposed rules, which are summarized on the ATF website at https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/atf-launches-new-era-reform, are broken down into five groups — Repeal, Modernize, Reduce Burden, Clarify and Align — and are to be published in the Federal Register for formal public comment before finalization.
.
*************************************************************************************
RECENT COURT ACTIONS ADDRESS CONCEALED CARRY ON FEDERAL LAND (10 April 2026)
Recently, a Federal District Court Judge in Texas affirmed a previously granted injunction that prevents the enforcement of the U.S. Postal Service from banning the carrying of concealed carry at most post offices and related locations.
Back in September, the Northern District of Texas declared the carry ban on post office property unconstitutional, enjoining its enforcement against the specific plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit, including the Second Amendment Foundation and its members. In response to the ruling, the government filed a motion to limit the scope of the injunction to only the named individual plaintiffs and to members of SAF and its partner organizations who were members when the complaint was originally filed and who have been identified and verified. The current judge rejected this request. It is important to note that, at present, this ruling only applies to individual members of the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the injunction is temporary and only in place until the underlying court case is decided upon, including possible appeals.
In a related development in late March, a federal lawsuit was filed in the Northern District of Texas challenging the ban on firearms possession in federal facilities operated by the National Park Service. The lawsuit specifically challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), which makes it illegal to knowingly possess a firearm in a federal facility operated by the National Park Service, which includes government offices, visitor centers, ranger stations, fee collection buildings, and maintenance facilities.
The plaintiffs are arguing that the ban fails the “historical tradition of gun restriction” requirement contained in the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, in that the areas designated by the statute as being “gun free” are not historical “sensitive places”. It should be noted that NPS policy currently allows qualified individuals to carry within the parks themselves, but not within the buildings and areas set forth in the statute. Many gun rights commentators believe the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit have a good chance of prevailing, especially in light of the legal developments in the above-mentioned Post Office case.
.
*************************************************************************************
Federal Appeal Court Strikes Down Washington, D.C. Magazine Ban (06 March 2026)
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Washington D.C.’s ban on firearm magazines holding more than ten (10) rounds of ammunition violates the Second Amendment. The court, relying heavily on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Bruen (which requires modern gun laws to align with historical traditions of firearm regulation). found that such magazines qualify as “arms” protected by the Constitution because they are widely owned and commonly used by law-abiding Americans, concluding that there is no historical precedent for instituting a total ban on commonly used magazines.
The case, Benson v. United States, stemmed from the conviction of a gun owner for possessing a prohibited magazine, which has now been overturned. Although having no legal bearing on similar magazine bans outside of D.C., pundits and observers are already noting that this ruling could have broader implications for challenges to similar state or local magazine restrictions in other jurisdictions.
.
*************************************************************************************
S.C. Legislature Begins 2026 with 2 Actions (05 Feb 2026)
The South Carolina Legislature has started off 2026 by taking 2 actions on firearm-related bills.
First, the State House voted to override a veto by Gov. McMaster of S.135, which provides for the dismissal of pending illegal possession charges nullified by Constitutional Carry Act of 2024, to finally become law. The bill had originally been passed by both houses of the State Legislature in May 2025 and was vetoed by the Governor shortly thereafter. While the Senate quickly voted unanimously that same month to override the veto, it took the State House until January 2026 to do likewise, unanimously voting for the veto override mid-month. The effective date of the new law is January 14, 2026.
Second, H.4723, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, was introduced in the State House on January 13, 2026. This bill prohibits bringing civil liability actions against dealers or manufacturers of firearms & related items or trade associations, except under certain delineated circumstances. Legal actions wouldn’t be barred when:
- the dealer, manufacturer, seller, or trade association is directly involved in a crime giving rise to the action;
- the action is brought against a transferor convicted of transfer of firearm/ammunition used to commit a felony, Federal crime of terrorism, drug trafficking crime, or criminal export control violation by a party directly harmed by the conduct of which the transferor is so convicted;
- the action is brought against a seller for negligent entrustment of a firearm to a third party;
- the manufacturer, seller, or transferor knowingly, willfully, and intentionally violated state/federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product, AND the violation was the sole proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought, including violations of record-keeping obligations or aiding/abetting in false statement relating to sale/disposition of a qualified product;
- the action is for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the product; or
- the action is for death, physical injury, or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the product, when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except when the harm was caused by a volitional criminal act AND the defect, etc. is not considered the sole proximate cause of the harm
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish direct harm and that the civil action is not barred under this law. The bill has been referred to House Judiciary Committee, where it currently awaits further action.
.
.
.
.
