Two major legal challenges aimed at dismantling the National Firearms Act (NFA) were just denied review by the United States Supreme Court, and yes—it’s frustrating. But before writing this off as a total loss, it’s critical to understand what the Court didn’t say, and why that matters for the future of the Second Amendment.

The cases, United States v. Rush (Seventh Circuit) and United States v. Robinson (Florida), both challenged NFA restrictions on short-barreled rifles. In each case, defendants argued that the NFA’s registration and tax requirements violate the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework and that the 1939 precedent United States v. Miller should no longer control. Lower courts rejected those arguments, and SCOTUS declined to take the cases—without explanation.

Here’s the key point many headlines miss: a denial of certiorari is not a ruling on constitutionality. The Supreme Court did not uphold the NFA. It did not reaffirm Miller. It simply chose not to hear these cases at this time.

Lower courts leaned on three familiar arguments: claiming short-barreled rifles are “dangerous and unusual,” framing the NFA as a tax and registration scheme rather than a ban, and asserting historical analogues support regulation. Whether those arguments survive future scrutiny is very much an open question—especially post-Bruen.

Strategically, these cases had weaknesses. They arose from criminal convictions, which the Court has historically been reluctant to use as vehicles for sweeping constitutional change. Future challenges are already taking a different approach: civil cases, facial challenges, and lawsuits attacking NFA registration as an unconstitutional prior restraint—especially now that the NFA tax has effectively been reduced to zero.

With millions of suppressors and hundreds of thousands of short-barreled firearms lawfully owned today, “common use” arguments are growing stronger. Multiple well-funded cases from groups like GOA, SAF, and NRA are moving through the courts right now—and they may present a much cleaner path to Supreme Court review.