Last updated September 2026 · By Nick Hall, NFA owner who has sat through the Form 4 wait four times since 2019
Quick take: Missouri’s attorney general has sued ATF to strike the NFA registration rules for suppressors and short-barreled rifles, arguing that once Congress cut the tax to $0 the registry lost its constitutional footing. It also pairs that tax argument with a straight Second Amendment claim for suppressors and short-barreled rifles.
- What happened: Missouri and Festus resident Dave Marshak sued ATF in the Eastern District of Missouri on September 8, 2026, case 4:26-cv-01430.
- Why it matters: Missouri asks for a facial ruling that covers every untaxed NFA item, not relief limited to named plaintiffs and group members.
- What’s next: ATF and the Justice Department respond, and Missourians still file a Form 4 or Form 1 in the meantime.
- Who to watch: The same federal court already hearing Brown v. ATF, another challenge to NFA registration of suppressors and short-barreled rifles.
Most NFA lawsuits since the $0 tax took effect run the same single argument. This one runs two, and it comes from a state that says its own agencies are still stuck with the paperwork. I read the 34-page complaint so you don’t have to. Here’s what it asks for and how it differs from the cases we have already covered.
Deals of the Day
Today's best discounts · Updated 3x daily
Gun Deals
See All →
Table of Contents
How the NFA Tax Hit $0
The National Firearms Act of 1934 put a $200 tax on transferring suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and “any other weapons.” That figure never changed until 2025.
Then Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21, signed July 4, 2025. Section 70436 rewrote the transfer and making taxes at 26 U.S.C. 5811 and 5821: $200 for a machine gun or destructive device, and $0 for everything else. The change applied to calendar quarters beginning more than 90 days after enactment, which made January 1, 2026 the first day of the $0 suppressor tax stamp.
What Congress didn’t touch was the registry. The Form 4, the fingerprints, the photos and the entry in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record all survived. Missouri’s complaint says the Act “left undisturbed the NFA’s registration requirements,” and that’s the gap it wants a judge to close.
What Missouri’s ATF Complaint Asks For
Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway filed for the state, joined by Dave Marshak of Festus. The defendants are ATF, the Justice Department, Attorney General Todd Blanche and ATF Director Robert Cekada.
“The ATF’s heavy-handed restrictions on suppressors threaten lawful firearm use and undermine the rights protected by the Second Amendment,” Hanaway said in her office’s release.
Count one is the tax argument. The NFA was upheld in 1937 as a taxing measure, and with no tax on most NFA items, the complaint says “the constitutional foundation on which the NFA rested has dissolved.” It asks the court to declare the registration rules for every untaxed NFA firearm beyond Congress’s power, facially and as applied.
Count two is the Second Amendment. Missouri says suppressors and short-barreled rifles are protected arms in common use, and that there is no historical tradition of registering protected arms. It asks for an injunction against enforcing the NFA and ATF’s Form 1 and Form 4 regulations, 27 C.F.R. 479.62 and 479.84, as to those items.
Marshak’s part is concrete. He says he would buy short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and silencers, plus at least one more silencer, within 30 days of the $0 tax taking effect if he didn’t have to register them. The penalty for getting it wrong is real: up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, per the statutes the complaint cites.
How This Differs From the Silencer Shop Foundation Case
We covered the Texas case when it produced the first unregistered suppressor transfers in August. Missouri’s complaint describes that August 5, 2026 ruling in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF as a permanent injunction protecting “certain individuals, States, businesses and members of certain associations,” and it borrows the Texas court’s taxing-power reasoning almost wholesale.
Missouri goes further in three ways. It pairs the tax theory with a standalone Second Amendment claim. It tells the court that the state, one of its agencies and its employees possess and transfer NFA firearms and “are not exempt from the reach of the challenged NFA requirements.” And it asks for relief covering every untaxed NFA item, or at least suppressors and short-barreled rifles, on a facial basis rather than party by party.
The Second Amendment count leaves short-barreled shotguns out on purpose. The complaint acknowledges that the Supreme Court’s 1939 Miller decision rejected a challenge involving a short-barreled shotgun, and argues Miller doesn’t control short-barreled rifles. The tax count still reaches shotguns and AOWs.
And then there’s the courthouse. Brown v. ATF is pending in the same district, and that’s where DOJ has been defending the NFA registry on summary judgment. Missouri’s complaint turns the government’s own briefs against it, citing DOJ’s Brown filings and quoting a 2025 DOJ brief from a Fifth Circuit case: “In the view of the United States, the Second Amendment protects firearm accessories and components such as suppressors.”
The Numbers Behind Missouri’s Common-Use Argument
Common use is the heart of count two, and the complaint brings ATF’s own figures. It says ATF counted 3,536,623 registered suppressors and 870,286 short-barreled rifles as of May 2024.
By late August 2026, citing ATF’s processing-times page, the complaint puts those numbers at 6,654,209 suppressors and 1,227,044 short-barreled rifles. That’s nearly double the suppressor count in a little over two years, and the first eight months of a $0 tax are part of that run.
The complaint also says 42 states let their residents own and use suppressors. Our suppressor laws by state guide covers which ones and what each adds on top of federal law.
What Missouri Suppressor Buyers Should Do Now
File the paperwork. Unless you fall inside the Texas injunction, the Form 4 or Form 1 is still the law, and the complaint itself says the defendants “continue to enforce the NFA nationwide.”
It helps to know what wouldn’t change even if Missouri wins everything it asks for. The complaint points out that commercial suppressor and short-barreled rifle sales would still run through the Gun Control Act’s background check. The dealer, the 4473 and the NICS check stay. Machine guns stay taxed at $200.
The tax is gone. The paperwork isn’t. Missouri wants a judge to say that’s backwards.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the NFA tax on suppressors really $0?
Yes. Section 70436 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Public Law 119-21 signed July 4, 2025, set the transfer and making tax at $0 for every NFA firearm except machine guns and destructive devices, which stay at $200. It applied to calendar quarters beginning more than 90 days after enactment, so the $0 tax started January 1, 2026.
Do I still have to register a suppressor with ATF?
For most buyers, yes. The $0 tax did not remove the NFA registration requirements, so a Form 4 transfer or Form 1 making application is still required. A federal court in Texas enjoined enforcement in August 2026 for certain individuals, states, businesses and association members, but that order does not cover everyone.
What is Missouri’s lawsuit against ATF?
Missouri, through Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway, and Festus resident Dave Marshak sued ATF, the Justice Department, Attorney General Todd Blanche and ATF Director Robert Cekada in the Eastern District of Missouri on September 8, 2026, case 4:26-cv-01430. It argues the NFA’s registration rules for untaxed firearms exceed Congress’s power and that registering suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment.
How is Missouri’s case different from Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF?
The Texas case turned on the taxing power and produced an injunction protecting specific plaintiffs and association members. Missouri makes the same taxing-power argument, adds a separate Second Amendment claim for suppressors and short-barreled rifles, says the state’s own agencies are not exempt from the NFA, and asks for relief covering all untaxed NFA firearms.
Does Missouri’s lawsuit cover short-barreled shotguns?
Partly. The taxing-power claim covers every untaxed NFA firearm, including short-barreled shotguns and AOWs. The Second Amendment claim is limited to suppressors and short-barreled rifles, because the Supreme Court’s 1939 Miller decision rejected a challenge involving a short-barreled shotgun.
Does the $0 tax or this lawsuit affect machine guns?
No. The transfer and making tax on machine guns and destructive devices stayed at $200, so they are not untaxed NFA firearms and fall outside Missouri’s tax argument.
Would a win for Missouri end background checks on suppressors?
No. The complaint itself notes that commercial suppressor and short-barreled rifle sales would still be subject to the Gun Control Act background check requirements even if the NFA registration rules fell.
Related Reading
- Suppressors Are Moving Without Registration Now
- DOJ Defends the NFA Registry After Winning Wolford
- The $0 Suppressor Tax Stamp: What Changed in 2026
- Dealers Are Transferring Cans on a 4473 and Passing
- Suppressor Wait Times in 2026: How Long a Form 4 Really Takes
- Missouri Gun Laws: Constitutional Carry, Lifetime CCW and Stand Your Ground
4,715+ Gun & Ammo Deals
Updated daily from 200+ top retailers. Filter by category, caliber, action type, and price.
