New Lawsuit Argues NFA Registration Cannot Survive Without the Tax
- Austin Reville
- Mar 3
- 3 min read
A new federal lawsuit filed this week could have major implications for suppressor and short-barreled firearm regulation nationwide. The case, Roberts v. ATF, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and argues that because the federal excise tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms has been eliminated, the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) registration regime can no longer be constitutionally justified.
We here at 2 If By Sea Tactical, applaud those seeking to end the NFA. This has the potential to help us our nationally, including here in Minnesota, by restoring the right to “Keep and Bear Arms” without burdensome restrictions, taxation, and illegal registration requirements. If this lawsuit is successful, this case would significantly reshape how certain firearms are regulated in America.
Who Filed the Lawsuit?
The lawsuit was brought by a coalition of Second Amendment organizations and individuals, including:
Center for Human Liberty
T.J. Roberts and Zachary Cockrell
The case is supported by the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation. Be sure to support those who support you by donating to these amazing organizations that are fighting for your rights.
The Core Argument
The lawsuit centers on the original legal justification for the National Firearms Act of 1934. In the 1937 Supreme Court case Sonzinsky v. United States, the Court upheld the NFA as a revenue-generating tax measure. The registration requirements were seen as a mechanism to enforce collection of that tax.
The plaintiffs argue:
The NFA’s constitutional basis rested on Congress’s taxing power.
Registration requirements were justified as a means to ensure the tax was paid.
With the $200 excise tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms now eliminated, the revenue rationale no longer exists.
Therefore, the registration regime tied to those items lacks constitutional foundation.
Additionally, the complaint asserts that suppressors and short-barreled firearms are “bearable arms” protected under the Second Amendment — especially under the historical-tradition framework established in Bruen. In short: if the tax is gone, the red tape should be too per the Sonzinsky case
Why This Matters
For decades, suppressors and certain short-barreled firearms have been subject to:
Federal registration
Fingerprinting
Background checks
Lengthy approval timelines
Transfer restrictions
If the courts agree that the registration scheme was justified only as a tax enforcement mechanism, the implications could be substantial. Knox Williams, President of the American Suppressor Association Foundation, stated:
“The Second Amendment is supposed to be a guarantee – not a privilege subject to bureaucratic approval. Now that the $200 NFA excise tax has been eliminated, the archaic NFA registration regime can no longer be justified.”
Not the Only Challenge
Roberts v. ATF is the third major case challenging the NFA’s suppressor and short-barrel framework. Two similar lawsuits — Brown v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF — were filed late last year in other federal circuits. This coordinated legal strategy increases the likelihood that appellate courts, and potentially the Supreme Court, may eventually weigh in.
What Happens Next?
The case is still in its early stages. The federal government will have an opportunity to respond, and the district court will determine whether the plaintiffs’ claims move forward. If successful, the case would undermine the remaining registration framework for suppressors and short-barreled firearms. Force Congress to revisit the statutory structure or just have those regulations collapse entirely. It would also spark a broader reevaluation of NFA-era regulations
Suppressors are safety devices that reduce hearing damage, improve communication at the range, and mitigate noise complaints. Many of the NFA’s restrictions were enacted in 1934 under vastly different historical circumstances. Today, the courts are finally starting to correctly align with constitutional text and historical tradition. If the original tax-based justification no longer exists, it’s reasonable to ask whether the regulatory framework tied to it can stand.
We’ll continue monitoring Roberts v. ATF and the related cases as they progress. As always we encourage you to stay informed and stay engaged. We know that constitutional law is evolving — and the outcomes matter. So keep tuning in to 2 If By Sea Tactical for more updates.
Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical we strive to bring you the best experience in the firearms world. As we continue to grow the media arm of 2 If By Sea, make sure you keep tuning in to our Youtube and Rumble channels and right here at “The Patriot’s Almanac” to stay informed on the latest happenings in the firearm world! But we are not lawyers, so this isn't legal guidance. We are proud to be Southern Minnesota source for all things 2A.
Stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ready.
Comments