SAN ANGELO, TX — A high-stakes legal battle over the constitutionality of federal gun registration is heating up in Texas, as three of the nation’s leading gun control organizations have joined forces with the U.S. Department of Justice and former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to defend the controversial National Firearms Act (NFA).

The lawsuit, Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, was brought by Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Silencer Shop Foundation, and other plaintiffs. They argue that the NFA’s registration requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and similar items are unconstitutional — especially after Congress eliminated the $200 transfer tax on many of these items in 2025. GOA contends that without a tax in place, the government has no constitutional authority to require a national gun registry.

Despite this change in law, the DOJ continues to enforce the registration framework, arguing that the NFA is still supported by Congress’s taxing and commerce clause powers. In a surprising twist, the DOJ’s position is now being reinforced by an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief filed by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Giffords Law Center — the three largest gun control lobbying organizations in the country.

The 21-page brief argues that NFA-regulated items are “especially dangerous” and “easily concealable,” asserting that they continue to pose significant risks to public safety. The gun control groups claim that silencers and short-barreled firearms have been used in crimes, and that requiring registration helps law enforcement trace firearms and prevent their misuse. They further argue that the registration system does not infringe on Second Amendment rights because it merely regulates, rather than bans, ownership.

The brief also relies heavily on Congress’s Commerce Clause authority, claiming that NFA items are part of a national market that Congress has the right to regulate — even when these items are manufactured and possessed entirely within a single state. They argue that intrastate ownership could still impact interstate commerce and justify federal oversight.

GOA strongly opposes this position, warning that the federal government is now relying on a gun registry framework that lacks a constitutional basis since the underlying tax — once used to justify the law — has effectively been removed.

In a public statement, GOA criticized not only the anti-gun groups but also Pam Bondi, a former Republican attorney general and Trump ally, for siding against gun owners in this pivotal court battle. “Everytown, Giffords, Brady, DOJ — and now Pam Bondi — have all teamed up to protect a national gun registry,” GOA stated. “This is a betrayal of Second Amendment rights and a direct attack on the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.”

The outcome of Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF could set a major precedent. If the court sides with GOA, it could dismantle the NFA’s registration requirement for suppressors and potentially other items regulated under the Act. If the court sides with the DOJ and its allies, the federal government’s authority to maintain a gun registry — even in the absence of a tax — will be reaffirmed.

GOA refers to the case as its “Big Beautiful Lawsuit,” hoping it will mark a turning point in the fight to eliminate federal overreach and restore the full scope of Second Amendment protections.

As of now, the case remains pending in the Northern District of Texas.