A new federal lawsuit challenges the remaining rules of the National Firearms Act (NFA) after Congress removed the longstanding $200 tax stamp for certain regulated firearm items.
On February 26, 2026, Buckeye Firearms Association (BFA) joined a group of plaintiffs in filing Roberts v. ATF in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. The case challenges the constitutionality of the NFA’s registration requirements for suppressors and short-barreled rifles following recent legislative changes. (Check out Part 1 and Part 2.)
Background: From $200 Tax Stamp to $0
For decades, the NFA imposed a $200 excise tax and registration requirement on certain items, including suppressors and short-barreled rifles. That structure changed after President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill moved through Congress.
Originally, the legislation included both the SHORT Act and the Hearing Protection Act, which would have eliminated the tax and registration requirements for those items. Buckeye Firearms Association previously joined other national groups in urging lawmakers to remove those restrictions entirely.
However, Senate parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled that the provisions exceeded the Byrd Rule’s reconciliation limits because they were not strictly tax-related. As a result, the measures were stripped from the bill.
What remained was a reduction of the NFA tax stamp from $200 to $0, which took effect January 1, 2026 (you should definitely go get a suppressor, or several. Your choice).
Lawsuit Targets Remaining NFA Requirements
According to the complaint, removing the tax undermines the original constitutional basis for the NFA. When Congress passed the law in 1934, it depended on its authority to “lay and collect taxes.” Plaintiffs contend that without the tax, the registration requirement can no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power or any other Article I authority.
The lawsuit also claims that mandatory registration for suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment because there is no historical tradition supporting such regulation of protected arms.
The Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs in the case include Buckeye Firearms Association, American Suppressor Association Foundation, Center for Human Liberty, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Meridian Ordnance, and two individuals.
Dean Rieck, executive director of BFA, said the case could have significant implications.
“This has the potential to be another landmark case for Buckeye Firearms Association,” Rieck said. He noted BFA’s involvement in major Supreme Court cases, including Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), and Bruen (2022).
Zooming Out
Roberts builds on two earlier lawsuits challenging the NFA after the tax repeal: Brown v. ATF, filed in Missouri in August 2025, and Jensen v. ATF, filed in Texas in October 2025. Together, they represent the latest legal push to reshape the NFA’s application to certain firearms and accessories.
For more Outdoor HUB news, click here.
Sources:
Trending Products
