FirstAlerts
Regulators & Courts

Judge Strikes Parts of National Firearms Act, but Only for Plaintiffs and 15 States

A federal judge's order exempting the named plaintiffs, their customers and members, and government bodies in 15 states from National Firearms Act rules on short-barrel guns and silencers has taken effect. The civil case remains open.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 16, 2026, 11:05 a.m. ETWritten Aug 17, 2026, 6:25 p.m. ET
Developing · checked 54 min ago

This matter is open. Agencies announce the actions they bring far more reliably than the ones they lose, so an action reported here may since have been settled, dismissed or decided without a further announcement.

We last searched for new coverage of this at Aug 18, 2026, 8:14 a.m. ET — checked 54 min ago.

Firearms trade groups, gun businesses and a San Angelo gun owner sued in federal district court to overturn parts of the National Firearms Act, contending in their complaint that the regulations could not continue after Congress revoked the transfer and making taxes. U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, sitting in Lubbock, ruled on Aug. 5 that the challenged National Firearms Act provisions regulating short-barrel shotguns, short-barrel rifles and silencers are unconstitutional because Congress eliminated the transfer and making taxes on which they rested, according to the order. The order's reach is narrow. Its effect was limited to the individual and groups in the lawsuit, their current and future customers or members, and state agencies and political subdivisions in the 15 states that joined the case, the order states. The order took effect Thursday after the Trump administration declined to file an emergency appeal. The case is a matter and remains open and developing. The plaintiffs' contentions described here are allegations drawn from their lawsuit, and the ruling described above should not be read as a final resolution of the litigation.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 117 Aug 2026, 22:25current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.