The Trump administration’s Justice Department declined to appeal a federal court ruling that struck down decades-old restrictions on firearm suppressors and short-barreled rifles and shotguns, triggering an angry response Thursday from gun control advocacy groups.
U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled on August 5, 2026, in Jensen v. ATF that the National Firearms Act (NFA) registration requirements for these items are unconstitutional. The ruling opened the door for plaintiffs — including those in a consolidated case — to transfer suppressors and short-barreled rifles and shotguns without complying with NFA registration requirements.
Judge Hendrix gave the government a seven-day window to appeal the decision, meaning the ruling would take effect on August 13, 2026, if no appeal was filed. The DOJ did not file an appeal, and on the morning of August 13, Silencer Shop — one of the plaintiffs in the case — transferred a suppressor without going through NFA registration, according to Breitbart News.
The decision represents a significant shift in federal firearms policy. The NFA, enacted in 1934, has long required registration and a tax payment for the transfer of certain firearms and devices, including suppressors and short-barreled rifles and shotguns.
Giffords group reacts
Gabby Giffords’ gun control organization, Giffords, was described by Breitbart News as “apoplectic” over the DOJ’s failure to appeal the ruling. The group has been a leading voice in the push for stricter firearm regulations, viewing suppressors and short-barreled weapons as a public safety concern.
The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, formerly known as Handgun Control, Inc., also went into what Breitbart described as “full meltdown mode” on Thursday, accusing the DOJ of failing to protect “common-sense” gun controls for suppressors and short-barreled rifles and shotguns.
Neither group, according to Breitbart, explained why rifles or shotguns with shorter barrels should be subject to special gun controls, nor why suppressors — which are not firearms themselves — should fall under gun control regulations at all.
Legal and policy context
Judge Hendrix’s ruling is part of a broader legal challenge to the NFA’s regulatory framework, with plaintiffs arguing that the registration requirements violate the Second Amendment. The case has been closely watched by gun rights advocates and gun control proponents alike.
The DOJ’s decision not to appeal means the ruling now takes effect, at least for the plaintiffs in the case. Silencer Shop’s transfer without registration marks the first concrete application of the ruling, signaling a potential shift in how these items are regulated going forward.
The ruling could have wider implications beyond the immediate parties. If the NFA registration requirements are struck down more broadly, it would fundamentally change how suppressors and short-barreled rifles and shotguns are sold and transferred in the United States.
Gun control groups have expressed alarm, but the Trump administration’s decision to let the ruling stand suggests a willingness to accept the court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment in this context. For now, the focus remains on the immediate impact of the decision and the reactions from both sides of the gun debate.
Source: www.breitbart.com — https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2026/08/13/giffords-apoplectic-doj-didnt-fight-demise-nearly-100-years-suppressor-gun-control/