Gun rights groups capitalize after judge reverses decades-old silencer restrictions

Gun rights groups capitalize after judge reverses decades-old silencer restrictions ‘This is the first time in 92 years that any gun owner has been able to do this,’ a Gun Owners of America official says - Bookmark - CommentsGo to comments Gun rights groups have acted swiftly to after a court order reversing decades-old restrictions on silencers and supressors came into effect. U.S. District Judge James Hendrix ruled in Lubbock, Texas, last week that the restrictions were unconstitutional. Now, some people are able to purchase short-barreled shotguns and rifles, as well as silencers, without registration, with an extra layer of background checks removed. Judge Hendrix, said regulations in a 1930s-era law are unconstitutional. He said the rules must fall after the Republican-controlled Congress and President Donald Trump eliminated a $200 permit tax on the devices. Gun Owners of America revealed in a press release that two members purchased suppressors without needing to comply with registration requirements enjoined by Hendrix under the National Firearms Act. “This is the first time in 92 years that any gun owner has been able to do this,” Aidan Johnston, the director of federal affairs at GOA, told Fox News Digital. “Previously, this would have been punishable by up to 10 years in federal prison and a $250,000 fine per violation.” What actually happened with Hendrix’s ruling? On August 5, Hendrix struck down some regulations contained within the National Firearms Act, which passed all the way back in the 1930s amid concerns surrounding mafia violence. Hendrix’s decision came more than a year after President Trump signed a bill eliminating a $200 permit tax on items later included within the August 2026 ruling. “No longer can the challenged NFA provisions be justified - as they have been for nearly 90 years - under Congress’s taxing power,” Hendrix wrote in his ruling. Background checks will still be required, despite the need to register under the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives being lifted for affected parties. However, Giffords Law Center Chief Counsel Adam Skaggs said in a statement obtained by The Associated Press that the registration process required buyers to notify local law enforcement and ask if there was any reason through which their application could be denied. “That process effectively functioned as a heightened background check for NFA weapons, and that process is no longer enforceable,” Skaggs told the newspaper. So where does the change come into effect? The court decision only affects parties who filed the case that led to Hendrix’s outcome. That case was actually the result of the consolidation of two other cases, namely Silencer Shop Foundation v ATF and the NRA-backed Jensen v ATF. The Texas State Rifle Association, the NRA’s Texas affiliate, was a party in the Jensen case, according to the NRA-ILA. However, there are some distinctions between the two cases. The NRA-ILA says that the registration and approval requirements for the aforementioned weapons have been enjoined for the parties in both cases. However, the court ruling includes “any other weapons” for the SSF case. Meanwhile, certain marking requirements are enjoined for the Jensen parties. Is there still time to appeal the ruling? In his August 5 order, Hendrix said that the ruling would come into effect in seven days if the Justice Department did not appeal the decision. However, despite the order having taken effect, the DOJ still has time to appeal the court order. “The Department respects Americans' Second Amendment rights and is currently assessing the impact of the court's ruling,” a spokesperson for the department told CBS News. NBC News’ Senior Supreme Court Reporter Lawrence Hurley shared an excerpt from U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche’s confirmation, in which the latter man was asked about the National Firearms Act. “I defer to the measured judgment of Congress on whether the NFA should be repealed or weakened,” Blanche said in written responses to questions from senators, shared by Hurley on X. “The Department's duty is to defend the constitutionality of the laws passed by this body.” Has there been any criticism of the ruling? In a statement released on its website, gun violence prevention group Giffords slammed the DOJ for not moving to appeal the ruling during the seven days set by Hendrix. “The Department of Justice’s decision is a failure to defend public safety,” Emma Brown, the executive director of Giffords, said. “Congress put these safeguards in place nearly 100 years ago. Brown added, “As a result, silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns are rarely used in crimes today.” The executive director went on to warn that “silencers and dangerous, easily concealable weapons can now easily get into the wrong hands.” The Independent has contacted the Department of Justice for comment. Join our commenting forum Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies Comments