Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway filed a federal lawsuit seeking to stop the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from requiring Missourians to register suppressors and short‑barreled rifles (SBRs), according to the source report. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, with private plaintiff Dave Marshak joining the state.
In an announcement from her office quoted by the source, Hanaway said, “Law and order and the Second Amendment go hand in hand… It does not paper over rights with red tape.” She added that ATF’s “heavy‑handed restrictions on suppressors threaten lawful firearm use and undermine the rights protected by the Second Amendment.”
What the lawsuit asks the court to do
Per the source, the complaint takes two tracks. First, it argues ATF’s registration system for suppressors and SBRs can’t be justified under Congress’s taxing power after lawmakers set the National Firearms Act (NFA) making and transfer tax to $0 for those items, effective January 1, 2026, via the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” signed July 4, 2025. The source states that machine guns and destructive devices kept the $200 tax. The suit asks for a declaration that the leftover rules exceed Congress’s enumerated powers and for an order blocking enforcement against the covered items.
Second, the complaint treats suppressors and SBRs as “arms” protected by the Second Amendment, citing District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and the history‑and‑tradition test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), according to the source. The filing argues there is no founding‑era tradition of forcing Americans to register protected arms with a federal bureau and contends the devices are in common use for training, hunting, and self‑defense.
Why 1934 still hangs over a $0 tax
The source notes Congress passed the NFA in 1934 with a $200 tax intended as a barrier, and the Supreme Court upheld the statute in United States v. Miller (1939). After the later tax change reported by the source, ATF updated its rules to reflect a $0 remittance, but forms, fingerprints, photographs, wait times, and felony exposure for skipping the process remained in place. Dealers still walk customers through Form 4 even when no money goes to the Treasury, the source reports. That post‑tax “mismatch” is the core of Missouri’s taxing‑power claim.
How the Second Amendment argument is framed
According to the source, the complaint contends suppressors and SBRs are in common lawful use. The source cites industry and ATF registry data summarized by NSSF showing millions of registered suppressors, that suppressors are legal to own in 42 states and to hunt with in 41, and that they reduce muzzle blast without making a rifle silent. The source also describes SBRs as popular for home defense and vehicle carry because they are easier to handle in tight spaces.
This isn’t the first case—and Texas already moved
The source reports that in 2025, individual owners, a St. Louis‑area retailer, the NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and American Suppressor Association filed Brown v. ATF in the same federal district, raising overlapping claims after the tax drop.
Separately, the source states that on August 5, 2026, Judge James Wesley Hendrix in the Northern District of Texas held that NFA registration could not be sustained under the taxing power for items Congress untaxed. That injunction was party‑specific, not nationwide, and after a short stay, the Justice Department did not file an appeal within the court’s window, so the order took effect for the plaintiffs in that case, per the source.
The source emphasizes that Hanaway’s suit puts the State of Missouri on the caption, which could matter for standing and the scope of any injunction a Missouri judge might issue.
What doesn’t change today
According to the source, none of this allows buyers to immediately take home an unregistered suppressor. Machine guns remain heavily restricted. Some states still ban suppressors or SBRs under their own laws. Federal Gun Control Act rules on transfers also have not all been rewritten. The source advises that anyone shopping now needs current legal guidance for their state and specific transfer. The Texas order did not rewrite every related statute.
What to watch next
The source says the Eastern District of Missouri will have to decide whether a $0 tax can support a 1934‑era registration regime and whether Bruen leaves room for a federal registry of suppressors and compact rifles. The government is expected—per the source—to argue that registration is a modest public‑safety tool independent of revenue, that Miller still speaks to short‑barreled long guns, and that suppressors are accessories rather than arms. Missouri, according to the source, will answer that a criminal registry with no tax is not modest and that millions of lawful owners support the common‑use showing.
For Missouri owners—from hunters to range regulars—the source frames the practical question this way: after the tax went to $0, do these devices still require a federal file with the owner’s name on it? Hanaway’s lawsuit seeks to bring that question before a Missouri judge rather than leaving it to ATF forms and a $0 stamp that the source says still carries felony risk if skipped.
