A major development just dropped in the nationwide effort to dismantle parts of the National Firearms Act (NFA). The Trump Department of Justice has filed its reply brief in Jensen v. ATF, doubling down on its defense of the NFA—even after Congress reduced the $200 tax stamp on suppressors and short-barreled rifles to $0.

Historically, the Supreme Court upheld the NFA as a valid use of Congress’s taxing power. Plaintiffs in Jensen argue that once the tax was eliminated, the constitutional foundation collapsed. They’re asking the court to strike down the remaining registration and transfer requirements for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs.

In its new filing, the DOJ makes several aggressive arguments:

• The NFA remains valid under Congress’s taxing power because the Special Occupational Tax (SOT) on manufacturers and dealers still exists.
• Even if taxing authority fails, the law is justified under the Commerce Clause.
• The lawsuit is a facial challenge, meaning plaintiffs must prove there is no constitutional application of the law—a very high bar.
• Second Amendment precedent, including United States v. Miller and District of Columbia v. Heller, supports continued regulation of certain NFA items.

The DOJ’s strategy is clear: build multiple constitutional defenses so the NFA survives even if one argument fails.

No matter how the district court rules, this case is likely headed to the Fifth Circuit—and possibly the Supreme Court. With suppressor tax stamps now set at $0, Jensen v. ATF could become one of the most significant federal gun law cases in decades.