A federal judge has blocked enforcement of major parts of the National Firearms Act for certain plaintiffs, members, and customers. For people covered by the ruling, that could eventually mean acquiring some federally regulated firearms without the familiar Form 1 or Form 4 approval process.

For a Colorado resident, however, the disappearance of that federal paperwork could create a separate state-law question. Colorado classifies firearm silencers, short rifles, and short shotguns as “dangerous weapons” and makes possession a felony, while providing an affirmative defense for a person who has a “valid permit and license” for the weapon. The statute does not explain what happens if the federal approval document commonly relied on for that defense is no longer required—or is no longer issued—for a particular transaction.

That does not mean the ruling is currently a safe alternative to the established federal process. The judgment is stayed for seven days, its protection is limited to specified parties and relationships, and an appeal could change everything.

What the court actually decided

On August 5, 2026, Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered a memorandum opinion and final judgment in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, consolidated with Jensen v. ATF.

The court permanently enjoined ATF and the Department of Justice from enforcing several NFA registration, application, approval, and possession provisions for untaxed firearms against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers. Two additional marking provisions were enjoined only as to the Jensen plaintiffs and their covered members and customers.

The affected categories include silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and federally defined “any other weapons.” Machine guns and destructive devices remain taxed and were not part of this relief.

The judgment does not protect everyone nationwide. The court expressly declined to issue a universal injunction. It covers named individual, business, organizational, and state plaintiffs, together with the associated people and entities described in the order. The opinion adds an especially important limit for customers: protection for a commercial plaintiff’s customer—or a customer of an organizational plaintiff’s commercial member—covers transactions with that protected business. It does not let the customer disregard the challenged NFA provisions for every untaxed firearm the customer possesses, transfers, sells, makes, or manufactures.

The court stayed its judgment for seven days to allow the federal defendants to seek appellate relief. Unless the stay is extended or the judgment is otherwise altered, it is scheduled to take effect August 12, 2026.

Why the court ruled this way

Congress enacted the NFA as a taxing scheme. Its registration, recordkeeping, and approval requirements were historically defended as measures supporting collection of the making and transfer taxes.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act reduced the making and transfer taxes on silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” to $0 beginning January 1, 2026. Machine guns and destructive devices retained their $200 taxes. ATF initially maintained that the remaining application and registration requirements continued in force, as the agency explained in its May 2026 final rule.

Judge Hendrix concluded that once the affected taxes stopped generating revenue, the challenged regulatory provisions could no longer be sustained under Congress’s taxing power. He also rejected the government’s attempt to support the provisions under the Commerce Clause because, in the court’s view, Congress had enacted this NFA scheme under the taxing power rather than the commerce power.

The court did not decide the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims. Those claims were dismissed without prejudice after the plaintiffs agreed the court could avoid them if it granted equivalent relief on the enumerated-powers claim.

Colorado’s separate statute

C.R.S. 18-12-102 defines a “dangerous weapon” to include a firearm silencer, short shotgun, and short rifle. Knowingly possessing one is a class 5 felony. Subsection (5) provides this affirmative defense:

“It shall be an affirmative defense to the charge of possessing a dangerous weapon ... that the person so accused was a peace officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or Colorado National Guard acting in the lawful discharge of his duties, or that said person has a valid permit and license for possession of such weapon.”

Colorado does not operate a separate general licensing program for private possession of silencers, short rifles, or short shotguns. In practice, federally approved NFA paperwork has commonly been treated as the documentation supporting Colorado’s “valid permit and license” defense. But we have not found a reported Colorado appellate decision squarely holding that an approved Form 1 or Form 4 is the only document that can satisfy the statute—or explaining what qualifies when federal law does not require an approval for a protected transaction.

That distinction matters. An affirmative defense is not the same thing as an exception that removes conduct from the offense at the outset. Colorado’s text continues to classify the knowing possession as criminal and gives the accused a defense based on the circumstances described in subsection (5).

The unresolved Colorado question

If the federal injunction takes effect, a protected Colorado customer completing a covered transaction with a protected business may no longer be subject to the enjoined Form 4 and registration requirements for that transaction. But the federal judgment does not amend Colorado law, bind Colorado prosecutors, or define “valid permit and license” under C.R.S. 18-12-102(5).

That leaves several unanswered questions:

  • Will ATF continue accepting voluntary Form 1 or Form 4 applications from people covered by the injunction?
  • If it does, what approval or registration document will ATF issue?
  • If it does not, could some other federal dealer or transaction record qualify as a Colorado “permit and license”?
  • Would a Colorado court interpret the state defense differently once federal approval is no longer legally required for the particular person and transaction?
  • How will Colorado law enforcement and prosecutors approach possession while those questions remain unsettled?

The final judgment restrains federal enforcement; it does not appear to require ATF to accept voluntary applications or preserve a paperwork option for people who want state-law documentation. Statements from the prevailing organizations about a future without Form 1 or Form 4 approvals are not a substitute for operational guidance from ATF.

Where this leaves Colorado residents

As of August 6, the judgment is still stayed. Even if it takes effect on August 12, its protections will depend on who is involved and whether the transaction falls within the party-specific relief described by the court. Membership in an organization or having once bought something from a protected retailer does not create blanket protection for unrelated possession, manufacturing, or transactions.

More importantly, prevailing against federal enforcement does not itself establish the affirmative defense Colorado law requires. Until ATF, Colorado authorities, or a court provides clearer answers, treating the federal ruling as permission to acquire or possess one of these weapons in Colorado without the traditional approval document could carry serious state-law risk.

This is an unusually poor place to rely on a retailer’s summary, an organization’s announcement, or our interpretation. Anyone potentially affected should wait for the stay and appeal posture to become clear and obtain advice from a qualified Colorado attorney before changing how they handle an NFA-regulated transaction or possession.

As always, we are not lawyers — just Colorado citizens trying to understand the law and share what we learn. The information on this website is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney/client relationship. The accuracy, completeness, or currency of the content is not warranted. Your use of content on this website is at your own risk. Consult an attorney about your specific circumstances.