NFA Ruled Unconstitutional — What Texas Means for Illinois

A federal district court in the Northern District of Texas just issued one of the most consequential Second Amendment rulings in years — declaring the National Firearms Act unconstitutional as applied to suppressors, short-barrel rifles, and short-barrel shotguns. Not chipped at the edges. Not narrowed on procedural grounds. The court went straight at the constitutional foundation of the NFA and found it wanting.

Before you start making plans, let me walk you through exactly what this ruling says, where it stands procedurally, and why it matters specifically to Illinois gun owners — including how it could eventually reach our case and the broader PICA litigation at the Seventh Circuit.

What the Northern District of Texas Actually Held

The court's opinion, published by the Second Amendment Foundation, rests on an Article I argument rather than a pure Second Amendment claim. The court found that Congress lacked the enumerated power under Article I to impose the NFA's regulatory scheme on suppressors, short-barrel rifles, and short-barrel shotguns — meaning the government's authority to regulate those items at the federal level is constitutionally defective at its root.

That is a different angle than the Second Amendment challenge the Fifth Circuit used in United States v. Comeaux last month, which we covered here. Comeaux said suppressors are "arms" protected under the Second Amendment. This Texas ruling says Congress didn't even have the power to regulate them through the NFA in the first place. Two separate constitutional problems, two separate courts, converging on the same conclusion from different directions.

When two federal courts reach the same result by two different constitutional roads, the legal pressure on the NFA becomes very hard to ignore — even for courts that have been skeptical of Second Amendment claims.

Why the Article I Angle Changes the Conversation

Most Second Amendment challenges — including our case, Bevis v. City of Naperville, and the broader PICA litigation in the Seventh Circuit — travel through the Second Amendment itself under the Bruen framework: does the regulation find a historical analogue in the founding era? If not, it fails.

An Article I structural argument is different. It asks not whether the regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, but whether Congress had the raw constitutional authority to pass the law at all. If the NFA falls on Article I grounds, courts don't even need to reach the Bruen analysis. That's a narrower but potentially faster path to invalidation.

For Illinois gun owners, this matters because a significant number of you hold NFA items — suppressors, short-barrel rifles registered before PICA — and have been caught in the double bind of federal registration requirements on top of Illinois' own restrictions. A successful Article I challenge would peel away the federal layer of that problem entirely.

The Seventh Circuit Is Watching — and So Am I

The Seventh Circuit, which governs Illinois, is not bound by a Texas district court ruling. Let me be honest about that. A district court opinion — even a bold one — doesn't change the law in our circuit overnight. This ruling will almost certainly be appealed to the Fifth Circuit, and if the Fifth Circuit affirms it, the conflict between circuits could push the Supreme Court to take up the NFA question directly.

We already know the Supreme Court has agreed to address whether the government can ban AR-15-style rifles consistent with the Second Amendment — the question at the heart of what started with our case. Adding an NFA Article I challenge to the Court's docket in the same term would be extraordinary. It is not guaranteed, but it is no longer unimaginable.

The Seventh Circuit, after its 2–1 ruling upholding PICA in July, is already on notice that the Supreme Court is skeptical of sweeping firearms bans. A strong Fifth Circuit affirmance of this Texas ruling would add to that pressure — and it would give the justices another vehicle for clarifying the outer limits of Congress's power over firearms regulation.

Practical Reality for Illinois NFA Owners Right Now

I want to be straightforward with you: do not stop complying with NFA requirements based on this ruling. This is a district court opinion in Texas. It does not apply in Illinois. The ATF has not changed its enforcement posture. Until a circuit court affirms this — or the Supreme Court weighs in — your suppressor still requires a Form 4, your SBR still requires registration, and you still need to stay in compliance.

What you should do is watch the Fifth Circuit's treatment of this case closely. If you have questions about what NFA items you can legally own and use in Illinois given both federal law and PICA, stop by the shop in Aurora or reach out directly. These questions have specific answers, and getting the wrong answer is expensive.

I've spent a lot of hours at the gunsmithing bench thinking through how layers of regulation — federal, state, local — stack on top of each other to make lawful ownership unnecessarily complicated. That layering is exactly what cases like this one, and like Bevis v. Naperville, are designed to dismantle. One layer at a time if we have to.

Where Things Stand as of August 2026

• Northern District of Texas ruling: Issued August 2026 — NFA declared unconstitutional as applied to suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs on Article I grounds.
• Appeal expected: The DOJ will almost certainly appeal to the Fifth Circuit. No timeline confirmed as of this writing.
• Fifth Circuit posture: Already ruled in Comeaux that suppressors are Second Amendment-protected arms. The same court is now likely to address the Article I question.
• Seventh Circuit / Illinois: Not directly bound. Our PICA litigation and Bevis v. Naperville continue on their own track, with the Supreme Court having granted certiorari on the core rifle-ban question.
• ATF enforcement: No change. Full NFA compliance remains required for Illinois residents.

This is a story that is moving fast, and I will update you here as the Fifth Circuit weighs in. The constitutional architecture holding up federal firearms regulation is under serious stress from multiple directions simultaneously — Texas from below, the Supreme Court from above. That's not hype. That's just where the law is right now.

The Constitution doesn't have an Illinois exception. We'll keep proving it.

— Robert Bevis, Law Weapons & Supply