President Donald Trump has directed the US Justice Department not to appeal a ruling that struck down major restrictions on short-barrelled rifles, short-barrelled shotguns and silencers, according to sources familiar with the decision.
The move would allow some Americans to possess or sell the firearms with less federal oversight. The weapons have been among the most heavily regulated in the US for more than 90 years because they are considered particularly dangerous and easy to conceal.
The ruling was issued in August by James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump-appointed judge in the Northern District of Texas. It followed legal challenges brought by 15 Republican-led states, gun-rights organisations and individuals, including Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation.
Under the National Firearms Act, anyone seeking to make, sell or possess weapons covered by the law has traditionally been required to submit an application to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, provide fingerprints and register the weapon. Firearms must also carry serial numbers.
Judge Hendrix found most of the restrictions on the specialised firearms covered by the legal challenge unconstitutional. His permanent injunction prevents the ATF from enforcing the contested provisions, although it formally applies only to the parties in the case and members and customers of the gun groups involved.
Sources said Mr Trump had told Republican members of Congress in recent weeks that he would ensure the Justice Department did not contest the decision. That position conflicts with recommendations from career and politically appointed lawyers in several Justice Department offices, who believe the ruling is legally wrong and has begun to affect federal firearms prosecutions.
The department has also faced questions over its constitutional “duty to defend” laws passed by Congress where reasonable arguments can be made in their support. The deadline for an appeal is October 5.
Why the court struck down the restrictions
Judge Hendrix’s decision relied on a provision in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act which removed a 200-dollar tax on the transfer or manufacture of firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act.
He concluded that, without the tax, the government could no longer rely on its taxing powers to justify the regulations. Justice Department lawyers have argued instead that Congress retains authority under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which covers trade across state lines, and that a separate tax on businesses dealing in the weapons remains in place.
The ruling does not cover commonly owned firearms such as AR-15 rifles and Glock pistols, which are largely regulated under another federal law. Restrictions preventing convicted felons from possessing guns also remain in force.
Machine guns and explosive devices are likewise excluded from the injunction. The National Firearms Act was introduced in 1934 to create federal controls over weapons associated with gangsters, including sawn-off shotguns and Tommy guns.
The impact of the injunction has already emerged in a criminal case in Alabama. Prosecutors dismissed an indictment against Cameron Silmon, who was accused of knowingly receiving an unregistered silencer, after his lawyer argued that Mr Silmon had joined one of the gun-rights groups after the injunction was issued.
Bren McMaken, the assistant attorney general prosecuting the case, wrote that the government “disagrees with Silmon’s position that a District Judge in the Northern District of Texas has the power to stop the United States Attorney in the Middle District of Alabama from enforcing the criminal laws of the United States.”
Although the charge was dropped, prosecutors said their investigation had uncovered evidence of further offences. Mr Silmon now also faces an allegation of illegally possessing a machine gun, a category not covered by the ruling.
Gun-control campaigners have criticised the administration’s decision not to seek a stay of the ruling. Emma Brown, executive director of the organisation GIFFORDS, described it as a “failure to defend public safety” and said: “The Trump Administration could bring us back to the days of Al Capone, where silencers and short-barreled shotguns were used to recklessly kill people.”
The firearms affected by the ruling accounted for about 5% of closed gun-trafficking investigations between 2017 and 2021, according to an ATF report. They have nevertheless featured in several high-profile criminal cases, including the killing of UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson, in which Luigi Mangione pleaded guilty after using a silencer.
Other states or counties could ask to intervene and appeal the decision if the Justice Department declines to do so. Congress could also seek to restore the tax or pass new legislation, although doing so would probably require Democrats to regain control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Jeffrey Cohen, a former associate chief counsel at the ATF, said the provision removing the tax could ultimately eliminate the National Firearms Act’s regulatory framework, which has been in place for 90 years.
