Trump Kills NFA Appeal — What It Means for Illinois Gun Owners

President Trump has ordered the Department of Justice not to appeal Judge James Hendrix's ruling striking down National Firearms Act restrictions — and that decision deserves more attention from Illinois gun owners than it's been getting.

I've covered the Hendrix ruling before on this blog. Judge Hendrix, sitting in the Northern District of Texas, held the NFA unconstitutional as applied to certain weapons in Jenson v. ATF. That was already a landmark. What happened next is arguably more significant: the Trump administration looked at the government's options, decided not to fight that ruling on appeal, and shut the appeal down. The injunction stands.

Why does that matter here in Illinois? Because the same DOJ that wrote our amicus brief in Bevis v. City of Naperville — siding with us against PICA — is now making a second consecutive decision to stop defending gun restrictions in federal court. That's a pattern, not a coincidence.

What Judge Hendrix Actually Ruled — and Why DOJ Walked Away

Judge Hendrix's ruling applied the Bruen historical-tradition test to NFA restrictions and found the government couldn't carry its burden. Short-barrel rifles, suppressors, and similar items in that case failed to match any historical tradition of prohibition that the Founders would have recognized.

When the Trump DOJ inherited the appeal, it faced a choice: defend a law that its own legal analysis likely found indefensible under Bruen, or decline. It declined. According to reporting from CBS News, the administration shut down attempts to push the appeal forward.

That's not a small thing. It takes institutional commitment to walk away from defending a federal statute. The DOJ did it anyway.

The same DOJ that filed on our side in Bevis v. Naperville is now refusing to defend NFA restrictions on appeal. That is a consistent legal posture — and Illinois gun owners should understand what it signals.

The 15-State Fight Over Who the Injunction Actually Protects

Here's where it gets complicated — and relevant. Fifteen state attorneys general have reportedly filed to intervene, arguing about the scope of the Hendrix injunction. Their position, roughly, is that the injunction should be read narrowly and shouldn't protect people outside the original plaintiffs.

That fight over injunction scope is the same argument Illinois has used in PICA litigation — that favorable rulings should be read as narrowly as possible and applied to as few people as possible. The State has consistently tried to limit the reach of any ruling that goes against it.

Courts are going to have to decide: when a law is found unconstitutional under Bruen, does that ruling protect only the named plaintiffs, or does it protect everyone the law touches? The answer to that question matters enormously for Illinois gun owners. If and when a court finds PICA unconstitutional — and I believe that day is coming — the scope of the remedy will determine whether law-abiding gun owners here get their rights back immediately or have to fight through years of follow-on litigation.

What the DOJ's Pattern Means for the Illinois PICA Challenge

I want to be precise here, because I'm not interested in overpromising. The DOJ declining to appeal the Hendrix NFA ruling does not automatically change the outcome in Bevis v. Naperville or the consolidated PICA cases at the Seventh Circuit. Those cases have their own procedural posture, and the Seventh Circuit issued its 2-1 ruling upholding PICA on July 9, 2026. That ruling is what we're fighting now as the case moves toward the Supreme Court.

What the DOJ's NFA decision does tell us is this: the federal government's legal posture on gun restrictions is not what it was three years ago. When I wrote letters to the DOJ and to Attorney General Pam Bondi — letters I wasn't sure would get a serious read — I was asking the federal government to treat the Second Amendment like it treats the First. The amicus brief they filed in our case said they agreed. The NFA appeal decision is more evidence that wasn't a one-time gesture.

A consistent federal legal posture matters at the Supreme Court. When our case reaches One First Street — and based on what SCOTUS has already signaled with Viramontes v. Cook County, that is not a remote possibility — the justices will see a federal government that has staked out a firm pro-Second Amendment position across multiple cases. That context doesn't determine outcomes, but it shapes them.

Where the Illinois PICA Fight Stands Right Now

As of this writing in September 2026, here is the honest status:

• The Seventh Circuit upheld PICA 2-1 on July 9, 2026.
• The Supreme Court has taken up Viramontes v. Cook County, the Cook County AR-15 and magazine ban case, which raises the same core constitutional question.
• Our case — Bevis v. City of Naperville — remains the lead challenge to PICA, and its fate is closely tied to what SCOTUS does in Viramontes.
• The DOJ has demonstrated, in both our case and now the NFA appeal, that it is not defending these kinds of bans in federal court.

Illinois gun owners caught under PICA — people who legally owned standard-capacity magazines and semiautomatic rifles for years, and who were forced to register or comply with a law I believe is flatly unconstitutional — are still waiting. I know that. I hear it. Visit the shop and it comes up constantly.

The legal groundwork being laid right now, across the NFA cases, Viramontes, and Bevis, is the strongest it has ever been. I'm not going to dress it up beyond that. Courts are unpredictable. But the direction of travel is clear, and the federal government is moving with us, not against us.

Law Weapons has been at this for 30 years. We're not stopping now.

— Robert Bevis, Law Weapons & Supply