Key Takeaways
- A federal court permanently enjoined enforcement of key National Firearms Act provisions regarding suppressors and short-barreled firearms.
- The injunction protects members of the Second Amendment Foundation and its sister organization, CCRKBA, including current and future members.
- SAF offers joint membership for $25 to access the protections of the Jensen injunction, emphasizing the need for active membership validation.
- State laws regarding silencers and firearms still apply and are not affected by the federal injunction, so it’s crucial to know your state laws.
- Consulting an attorney is advised before taking any action related to firearms, as court judgments do not equate to settled law.
Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
BELLEVUE, WA — The Second Amendment Foundation says a federal district court has permanently enjoined enforcement of core National Firearms Act provisions covering suppressors and short-barreled firearms, and that the protection runs to members of its sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
I already walked through the mechanics in 27 States Walk Out Same Day, 15 Still File the Form 4: The Full State List After the Midnight Suppressor Injunction, so the short version: the Final Judgment landed August 5, 2026 in the Northern District of Texas in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF, the seven-day stay expired at 12:01 a.m. Central on August 13, and SAF says the injunction is now in effect against the NFA’s making, transfer and registration provisions as to untaxed firearms, with NFA-defined “any other weapons” excepted.
That list is the part worth reading twice. SAF says the injunction runs in favor of the named plaintiffs, including John Jensen, Jeremy Neusch, David Lynn Smith, Hot Shots Custom LLC, the Texas State Rifle Association, FPC Action Foundation and CCRKBA, and also in favor of those organizations’ members, their members’ customers, and their customers. SAF says the court did not limit the Final Judgment to any geographic scope and specifically noted that it applied to “both current and future” members and customers of the organizational plaintiffs.
Here is the practical piece. Because the protection SAF describes attaches to membership rather than to the public at large, SAF is pitching a joint SAF and CCRKBA membership for $25 with the pitch “Want the protection of the Jensen injunction?” Twenty-five dollars for two memberships is cheap by any measure, and it funds the litigation side of this fight either way.
And if you already believe you are a member, go verify it. Memberships lapse quietly. A card expires in a drawer, an auto-renew fails on a card you replaced two years ago, an email renewal notice lands in spam, and you go on assuming you are current because you were current the last time you thought about it. “Current and future” is the language SAF quotes from the judgment, and that language does no work for a membership that ran out in 2024. Log in, check the date, renew if it is close. It costs you five minutes to know instead of assume.
Now the limits, because they are real and SAF is blunt about them. SAF says the NFA still exists and that this ruling is specific in nature. More importantly for anyone reading this at a gun counter, SAF states that state law requirements are not enjoined by the Jensen decision and remain in effect, and notes that some states outright prohibit possessing or transferring silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and AOWs, or prohibit it unless the item complies with the NFA. A federal injunction against federal registration provisions does nothing about a state ban. This is the same discipline carry permits demand, where what is legal one state line over may not be legal where you stand, which is why I keep state-by-state permit information current on this site. Know your own state’s law before you order anything.
More from USA Carry:
SAF’s own guidance is to talk to an experienced attorney in your area before undertaking any conduct, and it says the implementation of this injunction raises additional legal questions for both federal firearms licensees and individuals. Take that seriously. A district court judgment and a party’s summary of it are not the same thing as settled federal law, and the person holding the suppressor is the person holding the risk.
I will continue tracking Jensen v. ATF and the implementation of this injunction, including whether the government’s position on appeal is confirmed on the record.
