The Plain Record

Neutral daily news — clear headlines, complete facts.

Legal

Trump Orders Justice Department Not to Appeal Ruling Loosening Gun Restrictions

President Trump has directed the DOJ not to contest a Texas court ruling that removed registration requirements for silencers and short-barreled firearms for certain individuals.

Published September 17, 2026 at 7:20 PM EDT

The short answer

President Trump has directed the DOJ not to contest a Texas court ruling that removed registration requirements for silencers and short-barreled firearms for certain individuals.

Trump Orders Justice Department Not to Appeal Ruling Loosening Gun Restrictions

The Facts

Who
President Trump, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, and the Department of Justice.
What
President Trump ordered the DOJ not to appeal a ruling that struck down NFA regulations on certain firearms.
When
Following an August court ruling and ahead of an October 5 appeal deadline.
Where
Washington, D.C. and the Northern District of Texas.
Why
The ruling removes registration and oversight for certain firearms for members of specific gun groups, citing a lack of federal taxing authority.

President Trump has directed the Department of Justice (DOJ) not to appeal a federal court ruling that struck down several restrictions on specific categories of firearms, according to sources familiar with the matter. The decision allows the ruling to stand, which removed federal oversight requirements for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and silencers for certain individuals. These weapons were previously regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934, which required owners to undergo fingerprinting, submit detailed applications to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and register the weapons.

The legal shift follows a decision by U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, who ruled in August that these NFA restrictions are unconstitutional. The judge’s reasoning was based on a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, passed by Congress last year, which eliminated the $200 tax previously required for transferring or making these firearms. Judge Hendrix concluded that because the NFA no longer generates revenue from these items, the federal government lacks the taxing power authority to maintain the associated regulatory requirements, such as registration.

While the DOJ initially stated it was assessing the impact of the ruling, sources indicate the president personally decided against an appeal and informed Republican members of Congress of this stance. Internal reports suggest that some career and appointed DOJ lawyers disagree with the decision not to appeal, arguing it violates the department’s "duty to defend" laws enacted by Congress. The DOJ has argued in court that the government maintains authority under the Commerce Clause and that a separate tax on firearm businesses remains in effect, but these arguments did not prevent the injunction.

The ruling affects members and customers of the specific gun rights groups that brought the lawsuit, including Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation. Because the judge applied the injunction to both "current and future" members, individuals can reportedly gain legal protection from these federal regulations by joining these organizations, with annual memberships for Gun Owners of America starting at $25. This creates a mechanism where private citizens can bypass federal registration and serial number requirements for silencers and short-barreled weapons that have been controlled for over 90 years.

The impact is already being observed in federal courts. In the Middle District of Alabama, the DOJ recently dismissed an indictment against a defendant, Cameron Silmon, who was charged with receiving an unserialized silencer. The dismissal occurred after the defense argued the client joined gun rights groups that were party to the lawsuit after the Texas injunction was issued. While ATF data indicates that NFA-covered firearms accounted for only 5% of closed gun-trafficking investigations between 2017 and 2021, legal experts note that the ruling could effectively nullify parts of the NFA unless Congress acts to reinstate the tax or pass new regulatory legislation.

What happens next depends on the Oct. 5 deadline for the DOJ to file an appeal. If the department does not act, the permanent injunction against the ATF will remain in place for the parties involved. Legal experts suggest that outside parties, such as states or counties, may attempt to intervene to pursue an appeal themselves. Furthermore, any legislative remedy would require Congress to pass new laws or reinstate the tax, a move that analysts suggest would likely require Democrats to regain a majority in the House and Senate. Provisions regarding machine guns and explosive devices are not affected by this ruling and remain under federal regulation.

Timeline of what happened

Key dates and decisions, in the order they occurred.

  1. 1934

    National Firearms Act enacted

  2. August 13, 2025

    Injunction against NFA provisions takes effect

  3. October 5, 2026

    Deadline for the Justice Department to appeal the ruling

Summaries are written by The Plain Record to state the facts of a story plainly and without political slant. Drafted with AI assistance and checked against the source record before publication. See how we report, or report a correction.

← Back to the front page

Questions readers ask

What happened: Trump Orders Justice Department Not to Appeal Ruling Loosening Gun Restrictions?

President Trump ordered the DOJ not to appeal a ruling that struck down NFA regulations on certain firearms.

Who is involved?

President Trump, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, and the Department of Justice.

When did this happen?

Following an August court ruling and ahead of an October 5 appeal deadline.

Where did this happen?

Washington, D.C. and the Northern District of Texas.

Why does this matter?

The ruling removes registration and oversight for certain firearms for members of specific gun groups, citing a lack of federal taxing authority.