The National Firearms Act has survived repeated political and legal challenges for nearly a century, but the latest offensive from the National Rifle Association and its allies is designed to test its foundations in a very different Supreme Court era. A new coalition of major Second Amendment organizations is asking federal courts to declare that the NFA’s core restrictions on certain firearms and accessories are incompatible with the modern test for gun regulations. Their effort is not a one-off filing, but part of a coordinated campaign to force judges to revisit how far Congress can go when it regulates the right to keep and bear arms.
As I read through the filings and public statements, what stands out is how deliberately these groups are tying their arguments to the Supreme Court’s recent insistence on “historical tradition” as the benchmark for gun laws. They are not just attacking the NFA as bad policy, they are arguing that its registration mandates, taxes, and categorical bans cannot be squared with the way Americans historically treated firearms ownership. That framing, more than any single claim about silencers or short-barreled rifles, is what gives this new lawsuit its potential to reshape federal gun law.
The new lawsuit and who is behind it
The latest challenge to the National Firearms Act is being driven by a familiar set of players, but with a broader coalition and a more aggressive theory of the case. At the center is the National Rifle Association, which has made clear that it views the NFA’s treatment of items like short-barreled rifles and suppressors as a direct affront to the Second Amendment. In public descriptions of the case, the NRA has emphasized that the Supreme Court has established that any regulation on arms-bearing conduct must be consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, and it is using that standard to argue that the NFA’s core provisions cannot stand.
Alongside the NRA are other leading Second Amendment organizations that have long focused on the specific categories of weapons the NFA regulates. In a statement from Fairfax that described the filing, the National Rifle Association was joined by the American Suppressor Association and the Second Amendment Foundation, with the release noting that the National Rifle Association, the NRA, the American Suppressor Association, and the ASA were united in challenging the constitutionality of the NFA under that historical tradition test. By pooling their institutional expertise and legal resources, these groups are signaling that they see this case not as a symbolic protest, but as a serious bid to roll back a central pillar of federal gun control.
How this fits into a broader wave of NFA challenges
This is not the first time the NRA has gone after the National Firearms Act in federal court, and the new filing is best understood as the latest step in a multi-front campaign. Earlier litigation targeted specific applications of the NFA, such as restrictions on short-barreled rifles, with the NRA arguing that treating common rifle configurations as contraband unless registered and taxed violates the Second Amendment. In one description of that effort, the organization framed the case as part of a broader pattern in which the NFA’s treatment of short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment, a theme that reappears in the new complaint but now tied more explicitly to the Supreme Court’s historical test.
At the same time, the NRA has been willing to file overlapping or “another” lawsuit when it believes the legal landscape has shifted in its favor. One account of the group’s litigation strategy described how, in Oct, the NRA filed what it called another major case against the NFA, underscoring that it was not content to wait for a single test case to work its way through the courts. That Oct filing, referenced under the heading NRA Files Another Lawsuit Challenging the National Firearms Act, shows how the organization is layering challenges in different jurisdictions, hoping that at least one will reach a receptive appellate panel and eventually the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court backdrop and the historical tradition test
Everything about this new lawsuit is shaped by how the current Supreme Court has reframed the Second Amendment. In recent decisions, the Court has said that modern gun regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, a standard that shifts the focus away from balancing tests and toward analogies with laws from the founding era and Reconstruction. The NRA’s latest complaint leans heavily on that language, pointing out that the Supreme Court has established this historical benchmark and arguing that the NFA’s registration and taxation scheme for certain weapons cannot be justified under it.
That strategy reflects a calculation about both the Court’s appetite for gun cases and its skepticism of novel regulatory regimes. When the NRA describes its Oct filing as a second lawsuit challenging the National Firearms Act, it is not just counting cases, it is signaling that it believes the Court’s current doctrine invites repeated tests of longstanding statutes that lack clear historical analogues. By framing the NFA as a twentieth century innovation that imposes burdens on arms-bearing conduct without a clear historical pedigree, the plaintiffs are trying to position the law as exactly the kind of modern experiment the Court has warned against.
The role of President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill”
Any discussion of the NFA’s current legal posture has to account for the political context created by President Donald Trump and his signature legislative package. When he signed into law the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill, often shortened to OBBB, in July 2025, President Donald Trump set off a wave of analysis about how the measure reshaped the relationship between federal power and individual rights. Gun rights advocates quickly seized on provisions they saw as limiting the powers granted to Congress in ways that could be used to attack longstanding firearms statutes, including the NFA.
In one detailed account of the new litigation, the NRA and other 2A groups explicitly linked their lawsuit to the legal environment created by OBBB, arguing that the bill’s language on enumerated powers and individual liberties bolstered their claim that Congress had overstepped when it enacted the NFA. That report, which described how, in Aug, the NRA and allied organizations sued to abolish the National Firearms Act, emphasized that the plaintiffs were reading the One Big Beautiful Bill as a fresh constraint on federal authority. By tying their case to a marquee achievement of President Donald Trump, they are not only making a constitutional argument, they are also appealing to a political coalition that sees OBBB as a mandate to pare back federal regulation.
What the coalition is actually asking the courts to do
Although the rhetoric around the case often focuses on abolishing the NFA, the legal demands are more structured than a simple call to wipe the statute off the books. In their filings, the NRA and its partners are asking courts to declare that specific NFA provisions, particularly those that criminalize possession of unregistered short-barreled rifles and suppressors, cannot be enforced against law-abiding citizens who would otherwise be entitled to keep and bear those arms. The plaintiffs argue that these items are in common use for lawful purposes and that the NFA’s combination of registration, taxation, and criminal penalties amounts to a de facto ban that fails the Supreme Court’s historical tradition test.
One summary of the case described how several gun rights groups filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act, noting that the Lawsuit was framed as a direct attack on the statute’s core mechanisms rather than a narrow as-applied challenge. That account emphasized that several organizations were aligned in asking the court to invalidate the NFA’s registration and tax requirements for categories of weapons they consider protected arms. By structuring the case this way, the coalition is inviting judges to issue broad rulings that could either gut the NFA’s enforcement model or, if the courts reject the arguments, reaffirm Congress’s power to regulate these weapons.
SCOTUS hesitation and the short‑barreled rifle fight
For all the confidence Second Amendment advocates project about the Supreme Court’s current doctrine, the justices have not always been eager to wade into NFA disputes. In a recent development that looms over the new lawsuit, SCOTUS declined to take up a previous NRA-backed challenge to the NFA’s treatment of short-barreled rifles. A report on that episode noted that SCOTUS Denies Cert in an NRA, ILA, Challenge to the NFA’s short-barreled rifle restrictions, a reminder that even a Court sympathetic to gun rights can choose to leave lower court rulings in place.
That denial of certiorari has two implications for the new case. First, it suggests that the justices may be looking for a cleaner vehicle or a more fully developed record before they revisit the NFA, which could encourage the NRA to refine its arguments and build a broader coalition of plaintiffs. Second, it underscores the risk that, despite the historical tradition test, the Court may be reluctant to dismantle a statute that has been part of the federal landscape for generations. By pressing ahead with another lawsuit, the NRA and its allies are effectively betting that a more comprehensive challenge, framed in light of the Court’s most recent Second Amendment decisions, will be harder for SCOTUS to sidestep.
DOJ’s defense of federal firearms registration
On the other side of the docket, the Department of Justice is making clear that it sees the NFA as a cornerstone of federal firearms policy, not an outdated relic. In its responses to related litigation, DOJ has argued that the NFA’s registration and taxation requirements are a legitimate exercise of Congress’s authority and a critical tool for tracking particularly dangerous weapons. One detailed account of the government’s position described how, in Dec, DOJ Defends Federal Firearms Registration in an NRA Challenge to the NFA, stressing that the department views the statute as a lawful framework for federal registration of all firearms within its scope.
That defense is not just about the NFA itself, it is also about preserving the broader architecture of federal gun regulation. If courts were to accept the plaintiffs’ argument that the NFA’s registration scheme is unconstitutional because it lacks a clear historical analogue, DOJ worries that other federal statutes that rely on licensing, background checks, or recordkeeping could be vulnerable to similar attacks. By framing the NFA as a reasonable and historically grounded response to specific public safety concerns, the department is trying to persuade judges that the law fits within the kind of firearm regulation the Supreme Court has said is consistent with the Second Amendment.
Why multiple lawsuits instead of one test case
One striking feature of the NRA’s current strategy is its willingness to file overlapping cases rather than waiting for a single “perfect” test case to reach the Supreme Court. In descriptions of its recent activity, the organization has highlighted how, in Oct, the NRA filed what it explicitly called a second lawsuit challenging the National Firearms Act, underscoring that it was prepared to bring multiple actions in different jurisdictions. That approach reflects a recognition that constitutional litigation is often a numbers game, with advocates filing several cases in the hope that at least one will produce a favorable appellate ruling or present the right fact pattern to attract the Supreme Court’s attention.
There is also a signaling function to this flurry of filings. By repeatedly announcing that the NRA Files Another Lawsuit Challenging the National Firearms Act, the group is telling its members, donors, and political allies that it is aggressively contesting federal gun laws on every available front. At the same time, the repetition puts pressure on lower courts and on DOJ, which must devote resources to defending the NFA in multiple venues. From my perspective, this multi-case strategy is as much about shaping the political narrative around the NFA as it is about securing a single decisive court ruling.
What comes next for the NFA and gun policy
Looking ahead, the new lawsuit will test not only the durability of the National Firearms Act, but also the coherence of the Supreme Court’s historical tradition framework. If lower courts accept the plaintiffs’ argument that the NFA’s registration and taxation regime lacks sufficient historical grounding, they could set up a direct clash with DOJ’s insistence that federal registration of all firearms within the NFA’s categories is both lawful and necessary. The outcome will influence how far Congress can go in crafting modern regulatory tools that do not have obvious eighteenth or nineteenth century counterparts.
At the same time, the case will feed back into the political debate that President Donald Trump helped energize with the One Big Beautiful Bill. If the courts read OBBB as limiting the powers granted to Congress in ways that undercut the NFA, gun rights advocates will claim a sweeping victory that extends beyond this single statute. If, instead, judges uphold the NFA despite the new constitutional arguments, it will signal that even a historically focused Supreme Court doctrine has limits when it comes to dismantling long-standing federal gun laws. Either way, the NRA and its partners have ensured that the National Firearms Act will remain at the center of the country’s most consequential fights over the Second Amendment.
Like The Avid Outdoorsman’s content? Be sure to follow us.
Here’s more from us:
