u/d85b41

For those that want to read all 66 pages of the ruling from the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, here it is:

https://www.wiley.law/assets/htmldocuments/Silencer%20Shop%20Found.%20v.%20Bureau%20of%20Alcohol%20Tobacco%20Firearms%20and%20Explosives%20Memorandum%20Opinion%20and%20Order.pdf

https://preview.redd.it/zhk5vw2bc7jh1.png?width=916&format=png&auto=webp&s=069a58d6ede37265365822868affae463cce7569

https://preview.redd.it/q6g20svcc7jh1.png?width=904&format=png&auto=webp&s=d3ece1e4787f70988dd0480aee6af59eec04400b

On August 5, 2026, Judge Wesley Hendrix of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the National Firearms Act’s registration and approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns exceed Congress’s constitutional authority after Congress eliminated the NFA’s transfer and making taxes on those arms.

However, the court’s order was stayed until today, August 12, 2026, and many gun owners are wondering exactly what will happen if that stay expires and the injunction goes into effect as currently written. While some aspects will depend on the government’s discretion, until we have further guidance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, here is what we do know:

The Parties

The injunction is limited in scope to the parties in the case. The case is two separate cases that were consolidated (Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and the NRA-supported case Jensen v. ATF). The distinction is somewhat important because the injunction applies in slightly different ways to the different groups of parties.

The SSF parties are B&T USA, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Palmetto State Armory, Silencerco Weapons Research, Silencer Shop Foundation, the States of Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming, and several individuals.

The Jensen parties are the Texas State Rifle Association (NRA’s Texas affiliate), Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Hot Shots Custom, and several individuals.

The Court’s injunction applies to the parties and “where applicable, the parties’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers—both current and future.” This means that the protections of the injunction generally flow “downstream” in the chain of commerce. In general, this means that it will be important for manufacturers, distributors, and dealers to be a plaintiff or a member of a covered group, but customers of these businesses will likely be covered whether or not they are a member of a covered group.

NRA has partnered with TSRA to provide a joint membership for those interested. That membership is available here.

What Statutes and Regulations Are Enjoined? 

The NFA’s registration and approval requirements (26 U.S.C. § 5812(a)–(b); 26 U.S.C. § 5822; 26 U.S.C. § 5841(a)–(c), (e); 26 U.S.C. § 5861(b)–(f); 27 C.F.R. § 479.62(a)–(d); and 27 C.F.R. § 479.84(a)–(d)) are enjoined as to silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns for the covered parties. The injunction also includes “any other weapons” for the SSF parties only.

Certain marking requirements (26 U.S.C. § 5842(b); and 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i)) are enjoined with respect to the Jensen parties only. While the effect of this portion of the injunction will take some clarification from the government, it appears that the government will not be able to enforce the NFA’s marking requirements against Jensen parties’ members and customers who possess firearms covered by the injunction.

Perhaps more important than the statutes covered are those that are not covered by the injunction. 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4) makes it unlawful for a “licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver . . . to any person any . . . short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity . . . .” In the past, compliance with the NFA was considered “authorization” under this section. NRA is currently working pursuing other avenues for the administration to provide this authorization, but without further action by the government, compliance with the former NFA procedures will likely still be required before transferring a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

The analogous requirement for transportation of short-barreled shotguns and short-barreled rifles (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4)) was also not enjoined. Authorization for interstate travel with these firearms is still required. ATF has proposed to streamline this process by regulation.

The injunction also does not apply to the existing Special Occupational Tax regime for dealers in NFA firearms. While it could technically be possible for non-SOT dealers to receive firearms from a distributor or manufacturer on an ATF Form 4, ATF will need to clarify if an SOT is required for dealers who “engage in the business” of dealing in these firearms.

State Laws

Several states require compliance or registration under the NFA as a matter of state law. The injunction does not directly affect those laws but may indirectly impact them. For example, if the NFA no longer requires registration of certain firearms, then a state law requiring compliance with the NFA should not be deemed violated by those otherwise lawfully possessing those firearms without registration.

ATF has not indicated that they will stop processing NFA forms, so prospective purchasers of firearms in these states, could still follow the NFA process to comply with state law.

NRA’s team is currently working with state attorneys general to protect gun owners in these states, and we will continue to monitor and seek to amend these laws.

Moving Forward

The Jensen case is one of three cases supported by NRA and our litigation partners the American Suppressor Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation. The other cases are Brown v. ATF and Roberts v. ATF. On August 10^(th), Judge Stephen Clark of the Eastern District of Missouri heard our motion for summary judgment in Brown. We remain committed to expanding the injunction secured in the Jensen case in these other cases.  

Taking actions under an injunction is not without risk. An injunction can be dissolved or stayed with very little notice. Please check back regularly to www.nraila.org for updates on these cases.

While much remains uncertain with the injunction, the monumental nature of this win cannot be overstated. This is the biggest win against the unconstitutional NFA in its 92-year history, and it serves as a great example that the fight for our rights is never over.

Due to the complexity of these matters, it’s important to note that this is not legal advice and an experienced attorney in your state should be consulted on your particular legal situation.

If you haven't read the most recent lawsuit brought by MSI against MoCo, you should. We are going directly after them for dmages for each and every member of MSI.

"WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs respectfully request:

A. That this Court issue a declaratory judgment that Chapter 57 is not a “local law” in so far as it seeks to restrict the rights of Plaintiffs and MSI members who have been issued a Maryland wear and carry permit and, to that extent, it is a general law and thus unconstitutional under Article XI–A of the Maryland Constitution, as more fully set forth in Count I, above;

B. That this Court issue a declaratory judgment that Section 57-10 of Chapter 57 facially and as applied to the Plaintiffs and MSI members violates the express preemption provisions of MD Code, Criminal Law § 4-209(a), the express preemption provisions of 1972 Maryland Laws, Ch. 13, § 6, and the express preemption provisions of MD Code, Public Safety, § 5-133(a), as more fully set forth in Count II, above;

C. That this Court issue a declaratory judgment that Chapter 57 violates the Second Amendment rights of Plaintiffs and members of MSI who have been issued a Maryland wear and carry permit to the extent it imposes restrictions on the possession and transport of firearms and ammunition by the owners of, and by persons with a wear and carry permit within, a privately owned and open to the public (A) park; (B) place of worship; (C) library; (D) recreational facility; or (E) multipurpose exhibition facility, such as a fairgrounds or conference center or within the parking lot or grounds of these locations; or within 100 yards of these locations, as these terms are used in Chapter 57, as more fully set forth in Count III, above;

D. That this Court find that Plaintiffs and MSI members have been and/or will be irreparably harmed by the conduct of defendant challenged in Counts I, II, and III, and enter a preliminary and permanent injunction barring the County from enforcing Chapter 57 against Plaintiffs and other members of MSI in a manner consistent with the declaratory relief requested above;

E. That this Court award each Plaintiff and each MSI member nominal damages, as authorized and required by 42 U.S.C. § 1983;

F. That this Court award each Plaintiff and each MSI member actual damages, as authorized and required by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as may be proved at trial;

G. That this Court award attorney’s fees and costs against defendant, as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1988;

H. That this Court award the Plaintiffs such other and further relief as in law and justice they may be entitled to receive."

Link to actual complaint:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.609600/gov.uscourts.mdd.609600.1.0.pdf

Montgomery County Bill 23-26 id the county's attempt to redo their excessively restrictive carry ban after the previous law was struck down by the Maryland Supreme Court.

From MSI:

"Bill 23-26 passed today in Montgomery County. Bill 23-26 plainly exceeds the County's power as limited by the Maryland Supreme Court's decision in Engage Armament. The County's attempt to limit the rights of persons who have carry permits issued by the Maryland State Police is a gross violation of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as most recently construed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Wolford v. Lopez. As the Supreme Court stated in Wolford, "the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives." If signed into law by the County Executive, the Bill will be promptly challenged in federal district court and will be enjoined by that court. The County will then be on the hook for substantial attorney's fees and costs, as allowed by federal law. The County simply fails to grasp that the Second Amendment applies to Montgomery County no less than to any other part of the United States"

As the title states, if you aren't a member of Maryland Shall Issue (MSI) can I ask why? No judgement from me, just currious how many here are members and how many aren't.

As the title states, if you aren't a member of Maryland Shall Issue (MSI) can I ask why? No judgement from me, just currious how many here are members and how many aren't.

The Maryland House Republican Caucus sent a letter to the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division this afternoon, requesting they review Maryland’s “Glock Ban” for violations of the Second Amendment. Yesterday, the DOJ sent a letter to the State of California warning them of court action regarding similar legislation in that state, which goes into effect on July 1.

The Maryland House Republican Caucus sent a letter to the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division this afternoon, requesting they review Maryland’s “Glock Ban” for violations of the Second Amendment. Yesterday, the DOJ sent a letter to the State of California warning them of court action regarding similar legislation in that state, which goes into effect on July 1.

The following members signed on:

Delegate Jason Buckel, Delegate Jesse Pippy, Delegate April Rose Delegate Wayne Hartman, Delegate Mike Griffith, Delegate April Fleming Miller, Delegate Todd B. Morgan - District 29C, Delegate Kevin Hornberger, Delegate LaToya Marie Caldwell-Nkongolo, Delegate Chris Tomlinson, Delegate Chris Adams, Delegate Seth Howard, Delegate Tom Hutchinson, Delegate Stuart Schmidt, Delegate Nic Kipke, Delegate William Wivell, Delegate William Valentine, Delegate Barry Beauchamp, Delegate Barrie Ciliberti, Delegate Jeff Ghrist, Delegate Ric Metzgar, Delegate Jim Hinebaugh, Delegate Teresa Reilly, Delegate Kevin Anderson, Delegate Steve Arentz, Delegate Jay Jacobs, Delegate Terry Baker, Delegate Bob Long, Delegate Susan McComas

Open to the public with memberships availabel.

https://preview.redd.it/aqi7pnihky6h1.png?width=1536&format=png&auto=webp&s=1b0f0d6b7ad0b00ec3fc62fce4bd2175f4f757d3

The County Council meeting on the new/revised firearms restriction are today, is anyone going?

How many people here, that have a carry permit, understand "Plain View Doctrine" and how it relates to the lawful carrying of a firearm?

In short, if you are stopped for any reason, not associated with having a firearm on your person, and in the course of conversation, you tell them you have a permit and are armed, the police cannot remove your firearm to run the serial number to see if it is legally owned.

If they can plainly see the serial number, they can run it, but they cannot remove it, or move your shirt, coat, whatever, or remove it from your holster to run the serial number.

This is covered in Hicks v NV, where SCOTUS ruled that a serial number has to be in plane view to be run.

Link to the case: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/480/321/

The Core Facts of the Case

• The Incident: Police entered an apartment without a warrant after a bullet was fired through the floor, injuring a downstairs neighbor.
• The Action: While looking for the shooter and weapons, an officer saw expensive stereo equipment that looked out of place. He physically moved some of the components to find their serial numbers, called them in to headquarters, and discovered they were stolen.
• The Ruling: The Supreme Court suppressed the evidence, establishing that moving the equipment to read the serial numbers was a separate "search" unrelated to the initial reason for entry.

How it Applies to Firearm Serial Numbers

• Plain View Doctrine: For a plain view search to be valid, the incriminating nature of the item must be immediately apparent.
• Reasonable Suspicion is Not Enough: The officer in Hicks only had a general suspicion that the equipment might be stolen. The Court held that even a minimal physical inspection (like shifting an item) requires probable cause, not just mere suspicion.
• Firearms in Public or Traffic Stops: While some departments have policies that allow officers to run serial numbers during traffic stops, legal experts frequently point to Arizona v. Hicks to argue that doing so without articulable probable cause (e.g., knowledge that the specific gun is reported stolen) constitutes an illegal, independent search.
• Contraband: If a gun is fully visible and the serial number can be read without touching, rotating, or moving the firearm, courts have generally found it does not constitute a "search." However, physically picking up the firearm to inspect it triggers Fourth Amendment protections and requires probable cause.

So, the standard Glock (1 - 5) trigger is a cruciform style, however, the Glock performance trigger is not. While it is semantics, replacing the factory trigger with a performance trigger would negate the law on any firearm owned, and it's a common upgrade.

SB 334 - "Glock Ban"
Criminal Law – Firearm Crimes – Machine Gun Convertible Pistols

FOR the purpose of prohibiting, on or after a certain date, a person from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, purchasing, receiving, or transferring a certain machine gun convertible pistol, subject to certain exceptions; and generally relating to firearm crimes.

This was signed into law today, it takes affect Oct 1, 2026.

NRA and other pro 2A groups are looking for people to be plaintiffs against it.

MSI/FPC request CERT from SCOTUS in Novotny v Moore.

"Whether Maryland’s numerous prohibitions on carrying firearms in many places frequented by the general public violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments."

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6756/attachments/original/1779301447/2026.05.20_Cert_Petition.pdf?1779301447

MSI vs Mo Co placed in abeyance until Moore vs Kipke decided and looming decision in Woolford...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca4.172040/gov.uscourts.ca4.172040.137.0.pdf

This is for the ghost gun section of MoCo laws.