Add Row 
Add 
The SAF's Bold Challenge to NFA Regulations
In a significant legal maneuver, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has officially filed a response brief in its second lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA). This latest move, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, directly opposes the government’s motion for summary judgment in the contentious case of Brown v. ATF. The SAF’s argument hinges on the recent passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which has transformed the landscape of federally regulated firearms.
Impact of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act
Under the NFA, which has been in place since 1934, individuals wishing to purchase silencers, short-barreled firearms, or “any other weapons” (AOWs) were subjected to a $200 tax and required to register their firearms with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). However, with the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill in early January 2026—which abolished the tax—SAF argues that the constitutional footing of these regulations has been fundamentally undermined.
Bill Sack, SAF’s Director of Legal Operations, emphasized that the removal of this tax eliminates the government’s claim to authority under Congress’s taxing power. “The passage of the Big Beautiful Bill kicked the already questionable constitutional authority for the NFA right out from under the ATF,” Sack stated. This statement encapsulates the essence of the SAF's argument: without a tax, the grounds on which these firearms have been regulated are unfounded.
Perspectives from the SAF Leadership
SAF's founder and Executive Vice President, Alan M. Gottlieb, expressed optimism about the future of the NFA in light of these recent developments. “We’re better situated now than we have been in almost 90 years to relegate significant chunks of the unconstitutional NFA to the dustbin of history,” he remarked. This sentiment reflects a broader belief within the firearms rights community that significant change may be on the horizon.
Legal Community Response
The SAF isn’t acting alone; it is joined by prominent organizations such as the National Rifle Association and the Firearms Policy Coalition, alongside private citizens who are plaintiffs in the case. This coalition amplifies the call for a reevaluation of the NFA, demonstrating a unified front against what they perceive as an outdated regulation that infringes on Second Amendment rights.
The response briefs emphasize the notion that while the government attempts to craft new justifications for the NFA, these efforts fall short. For instance, the government's claims that it can draw upon unrelated taxation authority or utilize commerce clause arguments are characterized by SAF as weak and legally unsound. This strategic stance highlights how the SAF is positioning itself not merely as a group appealing individual cases, but as a movement advocating for comprehensive constitutional reevaluation.
Future Implications for Gun Rights
As this legal battle unfolds, the implications for gun rights across the United States could be profound. Legal experts are closely monitoring how the courts will interpret the NFA post-tax abolition. Should the SAF succeed, it might not only dismantle portions of the NFA but also set precedent for future legal challenges against federal firearm regulations.
The fight to amend or abolish the NFA represents a crucial moment for the Second Amendment Foundation and the wider gun rights community. The outcome of Brown v. ATF could reshape the regulatory environment for firearm ownership and use profoundly. As developments continue, stakeholders and advocates stand ready to engage with the evolving discourse surrounding firearms regulation.
Write A Comment