The legal fight to dismantle the National Firearms Act (NFA) has escalated after plaintiffs introduced new evidence showing how the ATF is operating in practice following the recent $0 tax change. The case, brought by major gun rights organizations, manufacturers, and more than a dozen states, challenges whether the NFA can still stand without a tax to justify its authority.

After the tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns was reduced to zero, the Department of Justice filed briefs defending the NFA as a lawful “shall issue” registration system. However, plaintiffs responded with newly obtained ATF records that appear to contradict that claim.

The evidence shows ATF examiners denying Form 1 applications based not on statutory violations, but on subjective judgment. In one example, an application was denied because the applicant stated they wanted to exercise their constitutional rights—an action critics say reflects open-ended discretion rather than objective standards.

This directly challenges the government’s argument under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which allows shall-issue systems only when they rely on narrow, objective criteria. Discretionary denials, plaintiffs argue, turn the NFA into an unconstitutional barrier to exercising Second Amendment rights.

With the DOJ now facing procedural disputes and substantive constitutional challenges, the case is shifting from theory to documented real-world impact. The outcome could have sweeping implications for the future of the NFA and federal firearm regulation nationwide.