One Big Beautiful Lawsuit

On June 26, 1934, the United States government elected to break a Foundational covenant with the American people, introducing the first significant federal gun control legislation since the Second Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. The infringement that started it all was, and still is, known as the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. Until that time, directives related to firearms had focused on militia matters and public safety, with an emphasis on regulating behavior rather than that which the Constitution commands “shall not be infringed.” An often-shared opinion regarding the clear move to subvert the Second Amendment is that lawmakers felt pressure from the public following the violence of the Prohibition era, but after so many years and so much corruption, I no longer question what came first: tyranny or the tyrant? It is the tyrant, the likes of those who see tragedy as opportunity, and freedom as a threat to unchecked authority.

The NFA initially regulated machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, silencers, and any other weapons (AOWs), but was amended in 1968 to include destructive devices (DDs), which include grenade launchers, “non-sporting” calibers over 0.50, etc.. It not only established an onerous system by which Americans could gain access to Constitutionally protected tools, but it also created the first gun registry in the history of our nation and introduced us to what has become an all-too-common government scheme to use taxation as a means to violate rights. You see, adjusted for the time period, the $200 tax stamp is equivalent to approximately $4,900 today. Imagine that. The wealthy and elite priced the ordinary citizen out of a God given right, turning it into a blasphemous privilege reserved only for themselves and their ilk.

Silencer Myth

It’s interesting to note that after silencers became scarce, considering the relatively huge cost of ownership after 1934, the public’s exposure to them was left beholden to exaggerated Hollywood depictions of assassins quietly executing targets while remaining undetected in broad daylight. This is a false perception purposefully fed to the public, as a silencer only reduces the audible report from a firearm’s sound signature but does not make it silent. With the vast majority of calibers, in fact, hearing protection is still necessary to avoid auditory damage, even when using a silencer.

Criminal or Tax Code?

Where does the NFA exist? It certainly isn’t included in Title 18, the Crimes and Criminal Procedure section of the United States Code that outlines federal criminal laws, prohibited activities, and related procedures. Instead, the NFA is found in Title 26, known as the Internal Revenue Code, the definitive source of all tax laws in the United States. How does that make any sense? I’ll explain.

With gun controllers just getting their feet wet, the political climate in 1934 suggested that regulation directly subverting the Second Amendment may not be seen as favorable, or even legal. The government solution to that problem was to call Americans stupid, proclaiming the congressional power to tax somehow allowed them to tax away fundamental liberties recognized by the Bill of Rights. The courts were in on the scam as well, with the Supreme Court upholding the NFA as a revenue measure in 1937’s Sonzinsky v. United States.

One Big Beautiful Letdown

In 2025, the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) emerged, a reconciliation bill in which President Trump promised that, if passed, it would provide him with the resources necessary to clean up after the Biden administration wet the bed for four years without changing the sheets. If you winced at the metaphorical stench, you’re welcome. The OBBB was also an opportunity for Second Amendment activists to lobby the House Ways and Means Committee to strip short-barreled firearms, silencers, and AOWs from the NFA completely. Remember, it was the government that placed the NFA in the tax code, thinking it a clever workaround to deny your Constitutional rights, and the Supreme Court signed off on it with tainted ink. As such, there is no more appropriate time to address this issue than in a reconciliation bill.

Activists ran the phones into the ground, and the result was a bill that included the complete removal of silencers, short-barreled firearms, and AOWs from the NFA. The bill remained intact until it reached the Senate Parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, a partisan Democrat appointed to the position by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in 2012, who hacked and ripped her way through the Byrd Bath like a '90s horror slasher works their way through a summer camp. It was clear to me then that this was much more than partisan sabotage, but an agreed-upon demolition of our hopes to reverse the damage done by the NFA. This became even clearer to me when neither Senate Majority Leader John Thune nor the Trump administration, through JD Vance, stepped up to shut down the corrupt Parliamentarian, resulting in the NFA being the only excise tax in American history that cannot be repealed under the Byrd Rule, a Senate procedure within budget reconciliation that allows for the elimination of provisions that are not directly related to budget or deficit changes.

I hate insulting consolation prizes, which is how $0 tax stamps on silencers, short-barreled firearms, and AOWs feel to me if we are not completely removing them from the NFA. While the monetary aspect of the transaction is constitutionally objectionable, the real offense arises from the shamefully severe penalties related to NFA firearms. For example, possessing an NFA firearm without completing the onerous process can get you ten years in federal prison, a fine of up to $250,000, forfeiture of your firearm, and a permanent ban on possessing firearms. Seems a bit harsh for an excise tax. How about a thirty-year mandatory minimum sentence for using an NFA firearm in a “crime of violence,” outlined under 18 USC 1924(c)(1), which includes misdemeanor convictions with a firearm if a self-defense situation is not black and white, or if the defendant cannot afford a decent attorney. Even state “stand your ground” laws and other procedural protections may not apply in federal court. The bottom line is that you are left entrusting the next three decades of your life to a bunch of strangers, even if you just shot a serial killer during a home invasion. This is increasingly troubling, as more and more Americans choose to keep SBRs for home defense as their smaller size leads to better maneuverability, and silencers because they protect the shooter’s hearing and those in the vicinity.

Additionally, a zero is still a number, especially in legal speak, and it is not the same as no tax. Democrats can, and likely will, try to plug a different number into that box next time they hold the reconciliation reins. So, I’ll take the small win because crumbs are better than nothing, but with full knowledge that the moment may be fleeting, and what follows may be worse, a sad reflection on where we are as a nation under the heel of our so-called leaders. The government shouldn’t expect any “thank you,” here, because I know how rain feels on my back, and that’s not rain.

We’re coming for our rights…

Despite almost a century of escalating infringement, individuals and companies do exist that are willing to put their money where their mouth is to challenge the abomination on its own turf, unafraid of the Clintons and knowing full well that Epstein didn’t kill himself. The team picking up the battle against the NFA now consists of some of the finest Second Amendment Avengers in the business, with Silencer Shop, Silencer Shop Foundation, Gun Owners of America (GOA),  B&T USA, SilencerCo, Palmetto State Armory (PSA), and Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) forming an alliance to take back that which we lost at gun control’s onset, well, most of it anyway.

“As Second Amendment supporters, we need to take a one-hundred percent hard line, no infringement approach on anything they’re trying to infringe on. When we’re trying to get rights back that have already been infringed, we literally need to accept every win. Even the little stuff, we need to be moving the ball back their direction… It was chewed away in the first place. We need to chew it back,” said Silencer Shop founder and CEO, Dave Matheny.

While I often express my concerns abrasively, doing my part to spread awareness while entertaining my own cynicism, I must respect the tireless efforts of a coalition that has placed itself on the front lines. I, like all Americans, deserve to have taxes refunded for every year I have lived deprived of our rights guaranteed by the Constitution. As much as I want it all back right now, however, I find Dave’s outlook encompasses a sense of practical nuance that keeps us moving in a more positive direction without compromising our core values.

In speaking with Dave, he made it clear that while he had high hopes of seeing silencers entirely removed from the NFA, his expectations were exceeded when we saw short-barreled firearms and AOWs on the chopping block as well. However, once the Parliamentarian writing was on the wall, Dave explained, that’s when the group came together to prepare a declaration of war, legally that is, written and filed on one symbolic day.

“The lawsuit itself was actually written on the Fourth of July, because we wanted to see the final text before we got it out there. Our lawyers were working on the Fourth of July to get this done. They put in a lot of time that day,” according to Matheny.

So, while many Americans were prepared for a night of beer, BBQ, and fireworks, these Americans were sacrificing a special evening with their families, letting the powers that be know the fight is on, that no quarter will be given, and that breathing room is not on the menu when it comes to violating the Second Amendment.

Goals…

The goal of Silencer Shop Foundation v Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), or the One Big Beautiful Lawsuit, is to dismantle the NFA’s registration scheme as it pertains to silencers, short-barreled firearms, and AOWs, finishing the job that Democrats and fake conservatives sabotaged during reconciliation. The case will be heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, seeking to prevent the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) from enforcing the NFA on the now-untaxed firearms.

The premise of the lawsuit addresses the fact that the NFA is no longer an exercise of Congress’s power to tax when it comes to firearms and silencers that no longer require any monetary exchange. A tax that does not generate revenue cannot be justified as a tax, rendering the NFA even more unconstitutional than it has been for the better part of the last century. Who would have thought?

“The NFA, when it was first passed in 1934, should have been ruled unconstitutional… The only reason that courts held it up is a very similar reason to what they used for ObamaCare, where they said you can literally regulate almost anything as long as you’re regulating it just by passing a tax. That’s what they did with the NFA. They also ruled that you can not use a tax for regulation if it does not collect any revenue. So, they basically invalidated their own tax argument, which is the only argument they used to defend the NFA in the first place,” said Matheny.

This makes perfect sense, but also causes me heartburn, as there is no way the mental gymnastics used to impose the NFA on us in the first place could have been agreed upon by any legitimate and uncorrupted judge or justice. Imagine a tax scheme by which Americans must apply and pay to exercise their First Amendment rights, with severe penalties for speaking before approval. How about due process? You can have it, but only if you pay the tax and get approved first. Do you think such a standard would survive scrutiny if applied to our other inalienable rights? I’d love to be a fly on the wall when a rabid liberal feminist walks into a CVS looking for more blue hair dye, only to be turned down for lack of a tax stamp, or to see some guy spill his grande, iced, sugar-free, vanilla soy milk latte as he is dragged away from Starbucks in handcuffs over an unapproved manbun.

Implications…

The One Big Beautiful Lawsuit places us in a unique showdown with the Trump administration and the DOJ. No matter where your loyalties lie, who you voted for, or what promises you’ve chosen to believe, all the chips have been pushed to the center of the table, and it is time to flip over the cards. What I mean is that the DOJ’s response to this lawsuit will unequivocally answer once and for all where this administration stands on the Second Amendment. The government can choose to concede the matter and not contest the lawsuit, signaling sincerity in President Trump’s and Attorney General Bondi’s assurances that they believe the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. It will also save significant tax dollars, as Americans would avoid having to pay for both sides of the litigation.

On the other hand, resistance to this lawsuit of any kind ends the debate abruptly, confirming that you can take a New York Democrat out of New York, but you can’t make him a conservative President. It will also call out any BS about 3D chess strategies permeating the decision to bow down to the Parliamentarian during the Byrd Bath. The government’s next words on the matter should be chosen wisely, as not all DOJ actions have been congruent with its promises, especially as it seems the ATF has recently reversed its repeal of the Biden-era Zero Tolerance policy, a measure that saw FFLs harassed and shut down over trivial paperwork errors and other such pedantic pursuits.

That brings us to where we are today, in a state of hurry up and wait. Realistically, we should get a better idea of the government’s position in the coming months, but if the DOJ chooses to contest the lawsuit, we could see a drawn-out challenge lasting years. For that reason, the coalition is dedicating resources to fight the NFA on the legislative side simultaneously, making for an expensive multi-front battle for the United States Constitution. To make this all possible, all parties involved have invested heavily in the war chest, but it’s going to take additional support from the community to get this over the goal line. That’s why Silencer Shop offers a “round-up” option at checkout, because every penny counts towards the fight for liberty. Further, you can support the cause with no purchase necessary at silencershopfoundation.org, where Silencer Shop covers 100% of the overhead, so every dollar donated is spent in support of the Second Amendment.

“Filing this lawsuit is expensive. We expect this lawsuit and corresponding appeals to cost over $1 million. All plaintiffs in this suit have pledged over six figures to the cause. Gun Owners of America needs to raise additional funds to ensure we win this lawsuit… We want our customers to know that a portion of every purchase goes to funding cases like this. While you support us, we support you,” according to Cameron Tapler, Director of Branding and Product Management for Palmetto State Armory.

Left behind…

Unfortunately, it looks like most are not quite ready yet to touch machine guns and destructive devices, political lightning rods that even pro-gun conservatives seem too apprehensive to discuss. This is part of a sad phenomenon by which we’ve found ourselves so far detached from the Second Amendment’s original intent that we’re stuck in an irrelevant loop trying to justify firearms ownership through sporting, hunting, and self-defense arguments. The uncomfortable truth, however, is that the Second Amendment is meant as a hedge against tyranny. It exists not only to guarantee Americans have the means to defend against attacks from a tyrannical government, but also so that we may replace that government when it no longer serves the people.

Even concepts like “common use” and “history and tradition” tests remain suspect distractions, and I don’t see these terms used anywhere in the Bill of Rights. “Common use” in and of itself disqualifies new technology, as cutting-edge developments are, by their nature, not in any use, further alienating them from “history and tradition” as well. Additionally, both are open to willful, corrupt interpretation by the same types of activist judges who helped get us here in the first place.

Final Thoughts…

Ninety-one years later, the NFA remains a stain upon a government that demands loyalty, respect, and compliance, while those within the leviathan demonstrate none in reciprocation. Mouth breathers, imploring your trust while trying to silence you on social media, intimidate you into taking a shot, and tell you the plain twenty-seven-word text of the Second Amendment means the exact opposite of what it actually says. Nothing is off the table anymore, as almost a century of unfettered corruption designed to subjugate the American people has turned any reference to the United States as a beacon of freedom into nothing more than uninformed nostalgia or willful deceit.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Firearms News will be covering this lawsuit in every issue throughout 2026.

---

About the Author: Darwin Nercesian

Darwin Nercesian is a long-time gun rights advocate and shooter of targets far, far away. As a News Field Editor at Firearms News, Darwin writes about the Second Amendment, firearms, and related gear. Follow him on Instagram, X, and YouTube @DTOE_Official.

---