Last updated August 2026 · By Nick Hall, NFA owner who has sat through the Form 4 wait twice and tracks federal firearms litigation weekly
Quick take: The Justice Department has told a Missouri federal court that the Supreme Court’s Wolford decision does not affect the constitutional challenge to NFA registration of suppressors and short-barreled rifles. This is the same DOJ that backed the winning side in Wolford five weeks earlier.
- What happened: DOJ filed a supplemental brief on 27 July 2026 in Brown v. ATF in the Eastern District of Missouri.
- Why it matters: The brief calls the National Firearms Act “a presumptively constitutional shall-issue licensing scheme,” borrowing the safe-harbour language Bruen wrote for carry permits and applying it to a federal registry.
- What’s next: The district court now rules on a registration question with the Bruen sequence freshly clarified against the government.
- Who to watch: The Eighth Circuit. Whoever loses in Missouri is appealing.
Most post-Bruen filings are procedural noise that never touches an owner’s life. This one is worth reading, because of what the government chose to call the registry when it had to defend it in writing.
Deals of the Day
Today's best discounts · Updated 3x daily
Gun Deals
See All →
Ammo Deals
See All →
What Wolford Actually Held
On 25 June 2026 the Supreme Court decided Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046, striking down Hawaii’s Act 52 rule that made it a misdemeanour for a licensed carrier to walk onto private property open to the public without the owner’s express say-so. Six to three, Justice Alito writing, reversed and remanded.
The holding itself is about carry.
But the reasoning is about method. The Court restated the order of operations under Bruen: first ask whether the conduct falls inside the Second Amendment’s plain text, and if it does, the restriction is presumptively unconstitutional and the burden shifts to the government to produce a historical analogue. Not a balancing test. A sequence.
Hawaii was not the only state affected. California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey all run versions of the same private-property default, and all of them now have a problem. Anyone tracking how their own state’s rules shift should keep an eye on the state-by-state picture, because this one moves several at once.
The Brief That Calls a Registry a Shall-Issue Scheme
Brown v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is a challenge to the NFA’s continued regulation and registration of suppressors and short-barreled rifles. After Wolford landed, the district court asked both sides what the new decision meant for the case. DOJ answered on 27 July.
Its answer: “In short, Wolford does not meaningfully affect how this Court should resolve plaintiffs’ Second Amendment challenge.” The distinction it draws is that “Wolford thus concerns how a government may permissibly regulate where firearms are possessed,” whereas Brown is about which weapons the government may regulate at all.
That is a real distinction and a lawyer is entitled to make it. The line that will get quoted for years is the other one, where the brief describes the NFA as “a presumptively constitutional shall-issue licensing scheme” and notes that it “requires, among other things, that the firearm be registered to whomever will possess it.”
Shall-issue is Bruen’s own term of art. The Court used it to carve out ordinary permit regimes from its holding, on the reasoning that a licence which issues to any qualified applicant on objective criteria does not really burden the right. Stretching that carve-out over a federal registry of specific items, with approval delays measured in months and a permanent record tying serial number to owner, is a genuinely ambitious move. And it is the government’s own characterisation, in its own filing, which is why it matters more than any advocacy group’s press release about it.
Why the Zero-Dollar Stamp Changed the Argument
Here’s the part that makes this live rather than academic. Until this year the NFA’s defenders had a simple story: it is a tax statute, Congress may tax, the registry exists to administer the tax. That story held up for ninety years.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act set the transfer and making tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and AOWs to zero, effective 1 January 2026. Machine guns and destructive devices still pay $200. For everything else on that list, the tax the registry was built to collect is now nothing, and the stamp costs nothing while the paperwork stays exactly where it was.
Which leaves the registration requirement standing on its own, with no revenue purpose underneath it, defended on the theory that it is a licensing scheme rather than a registry. That is a much narrower ledge than the one the statute stood on in 2024, and the plaintiffs know it.
What Changes for Buyers Right Now
Nothing. That is the honest answer and it is worth saying plainly, because litigation coverage has a habit of leaving readers thinking a rule has already changed.
If you are buying a suppressor this month you still file, still get fingerprinted, still wait for approval. The only thing that has changed in 2026 is the money, and approval times are the number to watch rather than the docket. Do not delay a purchase over a case with no decision date and a guaranteed appeal.
The district court will rule. Whoever loses will go to the Eighth Circuit, and a registration question with a clean record and a freshly clarified framework is exactly the shape of case that reaches Washington eventually.
The tax is gone. The registry is not. And the government just told a federal judge that a list of who owns what is a shall-issue licence.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Brown v. ATF about?
It is a Second Amendment challenge in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri to the National Firearms Act's continued regulation and registration of short-barreled rifles and suppressors. The plaintiffs argue those items are in common use and that federal registration of them cannot survive the Bruen framework.
What did the Supreme Court decide in Wolford v. Lopez?
On 25 June 2026, by 6-3, the Court struck down Hawaii's default rule making it a misdemeanour for a carry permit holder to bring a firearm onto private property open to the public without the owner's express authorisation. Justice Alito wrote the opinion. The ruling also reaches similar laws in California, Maryland, New York and New Jersey.
Why does Wolford matter to an NFA case?
Wolford clarified the order of operations courts must follow under Bruen: decide first whether conduct falls within the Second Amendment's plain text, and only then ask whether the government has met its historical burden. Plaintiffs in NFA cases want that sequence applied to registration. DOJ says it changes nothing.
What exactly did DOJ argue?
In a supplemental brief filed 27 July 2026, DOJ wrote that "Wolford does not meaningfully affect how this Court should resolve plaintiffs' Second Amendment challenge," distinguishing it on the basis that "Wolford thus concerns how a government may permissibly regulate where firearms are possessed." It also described the NFA as "a presumptively constitutional shall-issue licensing scheme."
Is the $200 NFA tax stamp still charged?
Not for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns or AOWs. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act set that transfer and making tax to zero with effect from 1 January 2026. Machine guns and destructive devices still carry the $200 tax.
If the tax is zero, why is registration still required?
Because the tax and the registry are separate parts of the statute. Congress zeroed the tax and left the registration, background check, approval and serial-tracking machinery untouched. You still file the form and still wait for approval, you just do not pay for the stamp.
Does this ruling change anything for me right now?
No. Nothing about buying a suppressor or building an SBR has changed while the case is pending. You still register, you still wait for approval, and the tax on those specific items is still zero.
When will the case be decided?
There is no scheduled decision date. The supplemental briefing on Wolford is now in front of the district court, and whichever way it goes, an appeal to the Eighth Circuit is close to certain.
Related Reading
- ATF Proposed NFA Rule Changes for 2026
- Suppressor Tax Stamp in 2026: What You Actually Pay
- How to Buy a Suppressor: Step by Step
- Suppressor Wait Times in 2026
- Suppressor Laws by State
10,650+ Gun & Ammo Deals
Updated daily from 200+ top retailers. Filter by category, caliber, action type, and price.
Related Guides
