The ATF’s nationwide retreat from National Firearms Act registration enforcement has gun owners asking a consequential question: Could a future administration reverse course and target Americans who acquired suppressors or short-barreled firearms without registering them?
Constitutional attorney Mark Smith argues that removing the barriers today could make renewed restrictions harder to defend tomorrow. His reasoning is straightforward: Wider lawful ownership strengthens the Second Amendment case against treating those arms as unusual weapons that government can prohibit.
In a Four Boxes Diner video, Smith explains why he believes the latest NFA victory could develop into lasting constitutional protection for suppressors, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns.
AmmoLand has followed this fight from the lawsuits through the first no-Form-4 transfers and ATF’s October 9 guidance. The question now is how gun owners turn that progress into protection that survives the next administration.
A Court Order Already Protects Covered Gun Owners
As AmmoLand reported when DOJ confirmed it would not appeal, the injunction in the consolidated Silencer Shop Foundation and Jensen litigation protects specified plaintiffs and, where applicable, their current and future members and customers. It binds successors in office.
A future ATF director cannot simply withdraw agency guidance and disregard a court order that remains in effect.
U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled on August 5 that the challenged NFA requirements exceeded Congress’s enumerated powers after Congress reduced the applicable making and transfer taxes to zero. The court did not decide the Second Amendment claims because the enumerated-powers ruling supplied relief.
Washington lost the taxing-power foundation for the challenged registration scheme. The separate Second Amendment fight remains consequential.
Nationwide NFA Relief Opens the Door to Wider Ownership
ATF’s October 9 guidance extends specified NFA nonenforcement nationwide for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs, including people outside the injunction.
The policy removes mandatory NFA approval and registration barriers for those categories. However, it does not repeal the NFA. Also, further complicating the issue for gun owners is that state restrictions remain, as do applicable Gun Control Act requirements. Machineguns and destructive devices remain subject to the full NFA registration regime.
AmmoLand’s guidance report explains the remaining requirements, including Form 20 approval for interstate transportation of SBRs and SBSs.
Smith expects easier access to produce substantially greater ownership. His argument is that those additional arms would reinforce the constitutional case against future restrictions.
Nearly Seven Million Registered Suppressors Already Exist
The ownership evidence is substantial before any projected increase.
ATF’s published registry figures, updated September 3, 2026, list 6,905,213 silencers, 1,258,554 short-barreled rifles and 210,604 short-barreled shotguns. Those figures count registered items, not individual civilian owners.
Smith points to approximately seven million suppressors as evidence supporting their protection under the Second Amendment.
The government should not be allowed to obstruct ownership, then use the resulting limits on ownership to argue that an arm deserves no constitutional protection. As AmmoLand previously explained in its coverage of Brown v. ATF, that reasoning rewards the government for burdening the right.
Americans do not acquire constitutional rights when a government database reaches a particular number. Wider ownership strengthens the evidence against restrictions; it does not create the right.
Smith Sees the Supreme Court Fight Reaching Beyond AR-15s
Smith connects the NFA developments to the Supreme Court’s pending Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins cases, which concern bans on AR-15-style rifles.
Smith predicts a favorable decision in June 2027 reaffirming protection for commonly owned arms. He believes that reasoning would strengthen challenges to restrictions on short-barreled firearms and suppressors.
He also argues that targeted taxes and registration requirements would face separate constitutional objections. Those are his arguments about future litigation. The Court has not issued the decision he predicts or resolved every restriction he discusses.
Gun Owners Deserve Lasting Protection
AmmoLand raised the future-enforcement questions in August. Smith offers an optimistic constitutional answer, but ATF’s FAQ still identifies unresolved exposure.
The agency says enforcement could resume if legal circumstances change. Federal law provides no automatic grandfather protection or general opportunity to register previously unregistered NFA items afterward. An amnesty would be discretionary.
That distinction makes continued litigation important. As AmmoLand reported in Brown, broader enforceable court protection remains unfinished work. Nationwide agency discretion does not expand the Texas injunction.
Smith’s argument gives gun owners another reason to press their advantage. Removing barriers could strengthen the factual foundation for dismantling restrictions permanently.
This is the start of the end of the NFA’s registration scheme for these arms. Finishing the job requires lasting court protection and congressional repeal. “Shall not be infringed” does not expire when a new administration takes office. Neither should Americans’ freedom to own protected arms.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
