NFA Fight Is Over — DOJ Makes It Permanent

The word "permanent" is doing a lot of work in this announcement, and Illinois gun owners deserve to understand exactly what it means — and what it doesn't.

On the heels of Judge James Hendrix's ruling in Jenson v. ATF — which struck down National Firearms Act restrictions on suppressors, short-barrel rifles, and short-barrel shotguns as unconstitutional — the Department of Justice under President Trump has now filed a formal letter through Solicitor General John Sauer confirming it will not appeal that decision. Not to the Fifth Circuit. Not to the Supreme Court. The DOJ is done defending this application of the NFA. You can read the Sauer letter yourself on CourtListener.

That's significant. But before anyone buys a suppressor without a tax stamp, let's slow down and talk about what this ruling actually covers — and why Illinois adds its own layer of complication on top of all of it.

What "Permanent" Actually Means in a Federal Case

When the DOJ declines to appeal a district court ruling, that ruling stands — but only as binding law within that court's jurisdiction, which here is the Northern District of Texas. A single district court decision does not wipe out the NFA nationwide. The Seventh Circuit — the federal appeals court that covers Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin — has not weighed in on this question.

So for Illinois residents: the NFA still applies to you. The $200 tax stamp, the Form 4, the months-long wait — none of that has changed in this circuit. What has changed is the trajectory. The federal government is no longer willing to spend resources defending a law it now concedes may be constitutionally indefensible. That matters for future litigation, for how judges read the government's posture, and for what Congress might do next.

What "permanent" signals is this: the Trump administration is not going to reverse course and suddenly start prosecuting NFA cases it previously declined to defend. The policy direction is set. That's meaningful even if it isn't a blanket legal reprieve for every gun owner in every state.

Why the Seventh Circuit Is the One to Watch

For my customers in Illinois, the Seventh Circuit is where this fight ultimately has to be resolved. That court is already handling Bevis v. City of Naperville and the broader PICA litigation — and its willingness to apply Bruen's text-and-history framework rigorously will determine whether Illinois gun owners get their rights restored on the AR-15 and magazine bans.

If an NFA challenge eventually makes its way to the Seventh Circuit — and given the momentum of post-Bruen litigation, that's a matter of when, not if — the DOJ's posture in Jenson will be impossible to ignore. Courts pay attention to whether the government actually believes in the law it's asking judges to uphold. A DOJ that walked away from the NFA fight in Texas carries less credibility defending similar restrictions elsewhere.

That ripple effect is subtle, but it's real. Every case where the federal government flinches strengthens the argument that these restrictions can't survive honest constitutional scrutiny.

Illinois Has Its Own Layer of Complication

Here's what often gets missed in the national coverage of rulings like Jenson: even if the NFA were struck down circuit-wide tomorrow, Illinois residents would still face state-level restrictions that exist independently of federal law. PICA — the Protect Illinois Communities Act — bans the sale and purchase of many of the same firearms and features the NFA governs, and it does so under state authority.

I've explained this to customers who come in thinking a federal win automatically clears the state board. It doesn't. The federal and state frameworks are separate, and Illinois has made clear it intends to defend its restrictions to the bitter end regardless of what Washington does.

That's why our case — Bevis v. City of Naperville — remains the critical front for Illinois gun owners. The Seventh Circuit has to answer whether PICA survives under the Second Amendment framework the Supreme Court set in Bruen. A DOJ that has abandoned its defense of NFA restrictions nationally makes that argument harder for Illinois to win, but it doesn't win it for us automatically. We still have to finish the job in court.

You can follow our ongoing coverage of the PICA litigation and all the related Second Amendment cases on the Law Weapons blog.

The Bigger Picture — and What Comes Next

Step back and look at the arc of the past three years. Bruen changed the constitutional test. District courts started applying it honestly. The ATF's frame-and-receiver rule got thrown out. The NFA is now bleeding in federal court. And the DOJ under this administration has stopped throwing good money after bad defending restrictions it can't justify under the historical record.

The federal government's retreat from NFA enforcement doesn't end the fight in Illinois — but it does change the odds for every case that comes after it.

For the suppressor and short-barrel rifle questions specifically: watch for litigation to develop in the Seventh Circuit. If a plaintiff in Illinois, Indiana, or Wisconsin brings a clean NFA challenge to a federal district court here, the government's position in Jenson will follow it like a shadow. Judges in this circuit will see that the DOJ blinked — and they'll have to decide whether the NFA can stand without the government's full-throated defense.

In the meantime, nothing has changed for Illinois NFA transfers. If you're buying a suppressor, a short-barrel rifle, or any NFA item through our store, the process remains exactly what it was: Form 4, $200 tax stamp, background check, and a wait. We'll walk you through it. Our gunsmithing team is also here if you have questions about NFA-regulated items you already own.

Where things stand as of late May 2025: the Sauer letter is filed, the DOJ has formally declined to appeal Jenson v. ATF, and the NFA fight in the Northern District of Texas is over. The Seventh Circuit fight — including Bevis — continues on its own track. No Illinois gun owner should mistake a Texas victory for an Illinois victory. Not yet.

We took this all the way for a reason. We're not turning back now.

— Robert Bevis, Law Weapons & Supply