DOJ Resists Expanding NFA Injunction

The Justice Department wants a federal judge to leave the injunction's reach exactly as narrow as DOJ reads it, even though ATF has already stopped enforcing the challenged NFA rules on anyone, anywhere.

Catch up quick: Boise Gun Club covered ATF Makes NFA Non-Enforcement Official after the agency's October 9 Open Letter and FAQ extended nonenforcement of suppressor, SBR, SBS and AOW registration requirements nationwide — not just to plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuits. That guidance didn't settle the legal question of who the actual court order protects. This week's DOJ filing shows the government wants that question to stay unsettled.

What's new: In an October 12 filing in the consolidated Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF cases, DOJ responded to a group of plaintiff states asking the court to clarify whether the permanent injunction protects every resident and transaction within their borders, not just the states themselves. DOJ's answer: don't bother.

The department's logic runs in two steps. First, it says ATF's nationwide nonenforcement policy already does the work a broader injunction would do, so clarifying the court order "would have no real world impact." Second — and this is the part gun owners should pay attention to — DOJ argues the injunction was never that broad to begin with.

The legal question: DOJ says the states won standing based on their own costs of buying and possessing NFA items, including for law enforcement purposes. That, the department argues, supports relief for states as governmental entities and their agencies and political subdivisions — not for every private citizen who lives there or walks into an FFL to buy a suppressor.

DOJ also says the injunction carries no requirement that ATF issue guidance at all, and that asking the court to add one now would amount to modifying the judgment rather than clarifying it — something the states missed their 28-day window to request.

"Because ATF is not enforcing the challenged NFA provisions in any state, clarifying whether the Court's injunction entirely prohibits enforcement in a particular group of states would have no real world impact."

Zoom out: DOJ is making a similar argument in the separate Brown v. ATF litigation in Missouri, where it's fighting statewide and nationwide relief. The department points out that states seeking broad protection in Missouri have described the Texas injunction as covering their agencies and political subdivisions — and argues they can't claim a narrower reading in one case while pushing a broader one in the other.

Yes, but: Policy and injunction are not the same thing. ATF's nonenforcement letter can be rewritten or reversed by the next administration with a signature. A court injunction that actually binds successors in office cannot. DOJ's own filing confirms the current injunction binds future ATF directors and covers specified plaintiffs, their agencies, and — where applicable — current and future members and customers. What it doesn't do, per DOJ, is protect every gun owner in the 15 plaintiff states simply because they live there.

What gun owners should know: This fight is about durability, not today's enforcement reality. State restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled firearms are untouched by any of this. And the Texas court ruled on Congress's enumerated powers — it never reached the Second Amendment claims. Those constitutional arguments, and the broader push to repeal the NFA outright, remain unresolved.

The bottom line: Gun owners have real, immediate relief right now. Whether that relief survives a change in administration or agency policy depends on how broadly a court — not ATF — defines who's protected. That's still being litigated.