A federal judge is taking a closer look at one of the most significant gun laws in the country — and the implications could be far-reaching.
In Roberts v. ATF, the court has ordered additional legal briefing on the National Firearms Act’s registration system, signaling that major constitutional questions are still very much in play.
As Ammoland reports:
In Brown v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Chief U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Clark of the Eastern District of Missouri issued an order on March 24, 2026, directing both sides to file supplemental briefs on several threshold and constitutional issues before the court moves further into the case.
The lawsuit was filed after Congress, through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, reduced the NFA’s excise tax for most covered firearms to $0 while leaving the NFA’s registration regime in place. According to the order, the plaintiffs argue that Congress exceeded its enumerated powers by keeping the registration system intact after stripping away the tax that had long been used to justify the statute. The plaintiffs also argue that the NFA’s regulation of short-barreled rifles and suppressors violates the Second Amendment.
In addition to individual plaintiffs Chris Brown and Allen Mayville, the lawsuit includes Prime Protection STL, LLC, and a coalition of prominent gun-rights groups: the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and the American Suppressor Association. The defendants are the ATF, acting Director Daniel P. Driscoll, the Department of Justice, and Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi.
Judge Clark’s order makes clear that the court has not yet ruled on the merits. It does not strike down the NFA, enjoin enforcement, or hold that the plaintiffs are likely to prevail. What it does show is that the court believes the case presents several “novel issues” that require focused briefing before the litigation can advance.
What’s changed — and why it matters
For decades, the NFA has relied on a key legal foundation: taxation.
That changed when President Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” scrapped the long-standing $200 tax stamp on certain regulated firearms.
Now, challengers argue that without that tax, the entire framework is on shaky ground.
They say what remains is effectively a federal registry with no clear constitutional justification.
What’s being challenged
The case targets federal rules covering:
- Suppressors
- Short-barreled rifles and shotguns
- Other NFA-regulated firearms
Legal advocates argue these restrictions may conflict with recent Supreme Court rulings that have expanded Second Amendment protections.
Why the judge is asking for more
Instead of issuing an immediate ruling, the judge is demanding deeper analysis from both sides.
That signals the court is weighing major questions:
- Can the federal government regulate these firearms without the tax?
- Does the current system violate the Second Amendment?
Part of a bigger legal wave
This isn’t an isolated case.
Across the country, similar challenges are moving through the courts — with some already heading toward the Supreme Court.
Many focus on whether commonly owned items like suppressors should fall under such strict federal control.
READ NEXT: Supreme Court Takes Up Election Challenge — Could Reshape Vote Counting
