Brandon Herrera and Texas State Rep. Wes Virdell walked out of Silencer Shop with suppressors without filing a Form 4 or registering them under the National Firearms Act. It was a historic moment—but it did not repeal the NFA for everyone. Here is what happened, who is actually protected, what gun owners and FFLs need to know before attempting a similar transaction, and what comes next.
Just after midnight on August 13, Brandon Herrera and Texas State Rep. Wes Virdell walked into Silencer Shop in Leander, Texas and did something Americans have not been able to do through an ordinary commercial transaction in generations.
They acquired suppressors without submitting an ATF Form 4, without waiting for ATF approval, and without registering the suppressors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
Gun Owners of America called them the first lawful commercial suppressor transfers without NFA registration since the National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934.
But there is an important catch:
It does not automatically protect every FFL.
And it does not mean you can walk into any gun shop, buy any suppressor, and simply announce that the NFA no longer applies.
The details matter.
A lot.
How Congress Pulled the Tax Foundation Out From Under the NFA
For decades, the National Firearms Act imposed a making or transfer tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, machine guns, destructive devices and other firearms falling within the statute.
Along with those taxes came the federal registration machinery: applications, fingerprints, government approval, registration and criminal penalties for noncompliance.
Then Congress eliminated the making and transfer taxes on four NFA categories effective January 1, 2026:
Suppressors.
Short-barreled rifles.
Short-barreled shotguns.
And Any Other Weapons.
Machine guns and destructive devices remained taxed.
Congress also left the NFA’s separate special occupational tax on importers, manufacturers and dealers in place.
Yet ATF continued enforcing the registration, application and approval machinery attached to the taxes Congress had reduced to zero.
That is what the plaintiffs challenged in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, which was consolidated with Jensen v. ATF.
On August 5, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix agreed with them.
The court held that Congress had enacted the challenged NFA provisions under its taxing power—and that once Congress eliminated the taxes those provisions were designed to support, those requirements could no longer be justified under that constitutional power.
The court therefore entered a permanent injunction preventing DOJ and ATF from enforcing specified NFA provisions against the protected plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members and customers—both current and future.
The court did not need to decide the plaintiffs’ separate Second Amendment claims.
Why Herrera and Virdell Could Walk Out Without a Form 4
Herrera and Virdell had an unusually clear set of facts.
Both were members of Gun Owners of America, one of the associational plaintiffs.
They were also completing their transactions through Silencer Shop.
Before the transfers occurred, GOA and Silencer Shop notified DOJ and ATF in writing that they intended to complete the transactions without filing a Form 4, without requesting ATF transfer approval and without registering the suppressors in the NFRTR.
The notice specifically identified Herrera and Virdell as GOA members and Silencer Shop customers.
Judge Hendrix had temporarily stayed his final judgment for seven days to allow the federal government to seek appellate relief.
That seven-day stay expired, and the transactions proceeded shortly after midnight on August 13 under the injunction then in effect.
That distinction matters.
Herrera and Virdell were not given special permission by ATF to ignore federal law.
They were relying on a federal court order preventing ATF from enforcing specified NFA provisions against people and transactions covered by the injunction.
Does Living in Texas Mean You Can Do the Same Thing?
No.
This may be the most important takeaway from the entire case.
Texas was one of 15 plaintiff states, along with Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming.
But the court did not turn every resident of those states into a plaintiff.
The state-based portion of the injunction protects the plaintiff states themselves and, where applicable, their agencies and political subdivisions.
So an ordinary Texan cannot simply say:
“Texas was a plaintiff, therefore I am personally exempt from the NFA.”
That is not what Judge Hendrix ordered.
At the same time, the injunction’s separate protections for members and qualifying customers are not written as benefits available only to residents of those 15 states.
That means there are really two different questions:
First: Are you personally or transactionally within the federal injunction?
Second: Does the law of your state independently allow the possession and transfer you are trying to complete?
Those are not the same question.
Membership May Provide One Path to Protection
The court’s order protects current and future members of the associational plaintiffs where applicable.
That is significant.
It means someone relying on the membership side of the injunction should be an actual member of a protected organization—not merely a subscriber, donor, email recipient or general supporter.
Judge Hendrix specifically declined to extend protection to vaguely defined “supporters.”
So if you intend to rely on associational membership, Texas Gun Rights strongly recommends becoming a documented member of an applicable plaintiff organization before attempting the transaction and keeping proof of that membership.
But membership alone does not answer every question.
The buyer may be protected while the FFL’s position is less clear.
The firearm itself may present another legal issue.
State law may impose an independent restriction.
And the identity of the actual purchaser matters.
For example, a person should not assume that his individual membership automatically extends to a trust, LLC or other separate entity purchasing the firearm. The injunction is party-specific, and those entity questions should be reviewed by competent firearms counsel before relying on the order.
Customers of Protected Businesses Have Another Path
Judge Hendrix also extended the injunction to current and future customers of commercial plaintiffs and customers of commercial members of the associational plaintiffs.
Why?
Because if ATF could continue imposing the challenged NFA requirements on their customers, those requirements would continue deterring people from doing business with the protected companies.
But the court drew a critical line:
Customer protection is transaction-specific.
The injunction covers qualifying customer transactions with the protected plaintiffs or their commercial members.
It does not give someone a permanent personal exemption covering every NFA firearm he owns, buys, makes or transfers for the rest of his life.
The named commercial plaintiffs in the Silencer Shop case include B&T USA, Palmetto State Armory and SilencerCo Weapons Research.
The consolidated Jensen case includes FFL Hot Shots Custom.
Silencer Shop has also published its own implementation guidance stating that qualifying suppressors and AOWs in its program must originate from Silencer Shop or another named plaintiff.
That is why the seller—and even the source of the particular product—can matter.
Buying a qualifying suppressor through a protected commercial chain is very different from walking into an unrelated FFL with an unrelated suppressor and assuming the same protection automatically follows you.
Before You Try to Buy a Suppressor Without a Form 4
This ruling is a major victory.
But this is also an active federal case involving criminal firearms statutes.
Do not treat a headline or social-media post as your legal protection.
Before attempting a no-Form-4 suppressor purchase, a buyer should be able to answer several questions:
- What exactly is my basis for protection under the injunction? Are you a current member of a protected associational plaintiff, a qualifying customer in a protected commercial transaction, or otherwise specifically covered?
- Is the FFL also comfortable that the injunction protects its role in the transaction? Your protection does not necessarily answer the dealer’s legal exposure.
- Where did the suppressor originate? If you are relying on a commercial-plaintiff/customer theory, the seller and distribution chain may matter.
- Does your state impose any separate requirement? A federal injunction against ATF does not erase an independent state restriction.
- Who is legally acquiring the suppressor? If the purchaser is a trust, corporation or LLC rather than the individual member, do not assume the protection automatically carries over.
- Do you have documentation? Keep proof of membership if membership is your basis, the purchase records, the suppressor’s identifying information and a copy of the court’s final judgment.
- Have you spoken with competent firearms counsel? If you are going to rely on a party-specific federal injunction involving potential felony exposure, getting legal advice before the transaction is the prudent move.
Texas Gun Rights is not telling every Texan to walk into any gun shop and demand a suppressor without a Form 4.
We are telling gun owners to understand exactly why they believe their transaction is protected before relying on the injunction.
FFLs Should Be Even More Careful
The ruling puts many Federal Firearms Licensees in an unusual position.
The court has prohibited ATF from enforcing specified NFA provisions against protected parties.
But it did not publish a comprehensive operations manual explaining how every dealer, manufacturer, distributor and customer should restructure their records and procedures overnight.
And the order does not wipe away the Gun Control Act.
That matters because a suppressor is still legally classified as a “firearm” under the Gun Control Act.
So ordinary federal dealer requirements still matter.
For qualifying commercial suppressor transfers, Form 4473 and applicable NICS requirements remain in place, along with the FFL’s ordinary federal recordkeeping obligations.
The separate NFA special occupational tax for importers, manufacturers and dealers also remains on the books and was not part of the constitutional relief granted by Judge Hendrix.
That means an FFL considering no-Form-4 transfers should independently determine:
- why the dealer itself is protected;
- why the purchaser is protected;
- why the particular product and transaction are protected;
- which federal Gun Control Act requirements remain;
- which state requirements remain;
- and what documentation should be maintained to establish the dealer’s basis for relying on the injunction.
A customer’s GOA membership card should not automatically be treated as a magic piece of paper that resolves every question for an otherwise unrelated dealer.
Silencer Shop’s own current guidance makes a similar distinction. Its program says qualifying Silencer Shop suppressor and AOW transactions can proceed without a Form 4 in states where state law allows it, while parties attempting to rely on organizational membership are advised to determine how the membership protection applies to both buyer and dealer.
Some FFLs may therefore decline to participate until their attorneys, compliance professionals or business partners are satisfied with the procedure.
That does not necessarily mean they oppose the ruling.
It means the legal landscape changed dramatically in a matter of days, and an FFL operating under federal licensing and inspection requirements may want a documented legal basis before becoming a test case.
Texas Gun Rights’ Recommendation
If you intend to attempt a purchase under the Hendrix injunction, Texas Gun Rights recommends taking the cautious route:
Become an actual member of an applicable plaintiff organization like GOA if you intend to rely on the membership protection.
Make sure the dealer understands why it believes it is protected too.
Make sure the particular suppressor and transaction fall within the legal theory being relied upon.
Keep documentation supporting that position.
And most importantly:
Talk to a competent firearms attorney before completing the transaction.
If you want ongoing access to our preferred Texas firearms attorneys, Texas Gun Rights supporters can sign up with Armed Attorneys.
A federal injunction is powerful protection.
But when the potential alternative is becoming the person ATF chooses to argue is outside that injunction, this is not the time to make assumptions.
What About Short-Barreled Rifles and Short-Barreled Shotguns?
This is another area where gun owners need to be careful.
SBRs and SBSs were part of the underlying constitutional victory because Congress also reduced their NFA making and transfer taxes to zero.
But dealer transfers face a separate federal obstacle outside the provisions Judge Hendrix enjoined.
The Gun Control Act—18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4)—prohibits an FFL from selling or delivering a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun to an individual unless specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity.
That requirement was not erased by the Hendrix injunction.
Silencer Shop’s current August 13 guidance therefore says SBR and SBS transfers still require a Form 4 in the states where they are lawful because the Form 4 is currently the mechanism being used to obtain that separate GCA authorization.
So do not look at what Herrera and Virdell did with suppressors and assume you can automatically do the same thing with an SBR.
The legal issue is different.
What About AOWs?
Any Other Weapons were also among the categories for which Congress eliminated the NFA making and transfer tax.
The Silencer Shop plaintiffs challenged the continuing registration system for those firearms as well.
Silencer Shop currently says qualifying AOWs in its program are being treated the same way as qualifying suppressors in states where state law allows those transactions without continued NFA registration.
There is an important wrinkle, however.
The final judgment states that the injunction does not extend to AOW regulation as it relates to the Jensen plaintiffs.
Again, the precise plaintiff or customer theory matters.
Machine Guns and Destructive Devices Are NOT Covered
Machine guns and destructive devices are outside the core constitutional holding because Congress did not eliminate their NFA making and transfer taxes.
The court’s ruling therefore does not eliminate their NFA requirements.
Machine guns are also subject to additional federal restrictions outside the portions of the NFA at issue here.
Why Are Suppressors Still Treated Like Firearms?
Even after the NFA victory, suppressors remain trapped under another federal gun-control law.
The Gun Control Act separately defines a firearm to include a firearm muffler or firearm silencer.
That is why a qualifying suppressor transaction can escape the enjoined NFA Form 4 and registration requirements while still requiring the buyer to complete a Form 4473 and satisfy the ordinary federal dealer-transfer requirements.
Texas Gun Rights believes Congress should eliminate that requirement too.
A suppressor does not fire a projectile.
It is a device designed to reduce the sound produced by a firearm.
There is no legitimate reason a law-abiding American should need federal firearms paperwork simply because Washington decided to legally classify that device as a firearm.
The Hendrix ruling attacks the NFA layer.
Congress still needs to eliminate the GCA layer.
H.R. 850, the Silencers Help Us Save Hearing Act, or SHUSH Act, is one proposal that would remove silencers from the Gun Control Act’s federal firearm definition and treat them as firearm accessories.
What Happens Next?
The Hendrix decision is a massive victory, but the legal story is not finished.
First, the court’s seven-day stay is over.
Judge Hendrix entered his judgment on August 5 and stayed its effect for seven days specifically so the federal government could seek appellate relief.
That period expired without DOJ obtaining a new stay.
That is why the injunction is operative now.
But the expiration of that seven-day stay is not technically the same thing as the expiration of DOJ’s ordinary deadline to file a notice of appeal.
Because the United States and federal agencies are parties, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 generally provides a 60-day civil appeal window. As of August 13, that ordinary period has not expired.
So gun owners should distinguish between two facts:
The injunction is currently in effect.
And:
The normal appellate filing period is not yet over.
There is also a larger strategic question.
Because Judge Hendrix declined to issue a universal injunction, DOJ and ATF are now facing the prospect of enforcing the same NFA provisions against one American while being prohibited from enforcing them against another American engaging in essentially identical conduct.
Nearly 50 members of Congress have already urged DOJ to decline an appeal, adopt the court’s constitutional position nationwide and begin rulemaking to remove the challenged regulations.
Other challenges can also continue working their way through federal courts.
Judge Hendrix specifically noted similar litigation including Brown v. ATF in Missouri and Roberts v. ATF in Kentucky.
That matters because his district-court ruling, important as it is, does not create binding Fifth Circuit precedent for every gun owner in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
If DOJ ultimately declines to appeal, the injunction survives—but there is no Fifth Circuit decision transforming Judge Hendrix’s reasoning into controlling appellate precedent across the circuit.
The Only Permanent Solution Is Repeal
This case shows both how much progress gun owners have made—and why Texas Gun Rights refuses to settle for half-measures.
A court injunction can be limited to particular plaintiffs.
An executive-branch enforcement policy can change with the next administration.
An ATF regulation can be rewritten.
The statutes themselves remain until Congress removes them.
That is why Texas Gun Rights continues demanding that Congress abolish the ATF and repeal the National Firearms Act.
H.R. 221, the Abolish the ATF Act, would eliminate the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
H.R. 335, the Repeal the NFA Act, would repeal Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code—the National Firearms Act itself.
And Congress must also finish eliminating the separate Gun Control Act provisions that continue treating suppressors and other constitutionally protected arms as federally restricted items.
Texas Gun Rights does not want a faster federal gun registry.
We do not want a cheaper permission slip.
And we do not believe a hearing-protection device should require federal firearms paperwork simply because Washington decided to call it a “firearm.”
We want the unconstitutional system gone.
SIGN THE PETITION: ABOLISH THE ATF & REPEAL THE NFA
Tell Congress it is time to dismantle the federal gun-control bureaucracy and repeal the National Firearms Act once and for all. And if you want to help Texas Gun Rights mobilize gun owners, pressure Congress and keep fighting until these federal gun-control laws are gone:
Court victories are worth celebrating. But gun owners should not have to depend on whether their name, membership card or gun dealer falls within the wording of a federal injunction to exercise a constitutional right.
The NFA must go.
And so must the ATF.
This article provides general information about an active federal case and is not individualized legal advice. Anyone intending to rely on the injunction should consult competent firearms counsel regarding the specific facts of the proposed transaction.
