Another Major Challenge to the NFA

Published on October 13, 2025
Duration: 11:55

This video discusses the legal challenge to the National Firearms Act (NFA) brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition in Jensen v. ATF. The lawsuit targets the inclusion of suppressors and short-barreled rifles (SBRs) under the NFA, arguing that these items are not subject to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause or the taxing power, especially since the taxes on making and transferring them have been removed. The challenge also asserts that these items are protected by the Second Amendment as they are in common use and not unusually dangerous.

Quick Summary

The Jensen v. ATF lawsuit challenges the National Firearms Act's (NFA) regulation of suppressors and short-barreled rifles (SBRs). It argues these items are not subject to federal control under the Commerce Clause or taxing power and violate Second Amendment rights, citing that SBRs are in common use with over 532,000 registered as of May 2021.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: New NFA Challenge
  2. 00:45Jensen v. ATF Lawsuit Explained
  3. 01:36Focus: Suppressors and Short Barrel Rifles
  4. 02:02NFA vs. Standard Firearms Regulations
  5. 03:25Historical Justification: Taxation Power
  6. 04:17Commerce Clause Argument
  7. 04:491968 Expansion and Form 1s
  8. 05:36FPC's Core Argument: Exceeds Authority
  9. 06:27Second Amendment Challenge
  10. 07:08Suppressors and the Second Amendment
  11. 08:03Short Barrel Rifles and the Second Amendment
  12. 09:19The 'Common Use' Test
  13. 09:49Requested Remedies
  14. 10:42Named Plaintiffs
  15. 11:05Conclusion and Resources

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Jensen v. ATF lawsuit about?

The Jensen v. ATF lawsuit, filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition, challenges the National Firearms Act's (NFA) regulation of suppressors and short-barreled rifles (SBRs). It argues these items are not subject to federal control under the Commerce Clause or taxing power and violate Second Amendment rights.

What is the legal basis for challenging the NFA's regulation of suppressors and SBRs?

The challenge is based on two main arguments: 1) the NFA exceeds Congress's constitutional powers, particularly the Commerce Clause, as these items are often made and possessed intrastate, and the original taxation justification is no longer valid. 2) The regulations violate the Second Amendment as suppressors and SBRs are in common use and not unusually dangerous.

How does the lawsuit differentiate between standard firearms and NFA firearms?

The lawsuit highlights that standard firearms require a Form 4473 and background check, while NFA firearms (like suppressors and SBRs) involve more stringent requirements: Form 1 or 4, fingerprinting, registration, and longer waiting periods, which the plaintiffs deem unconstitutional.

What evidence is presented to show short-barreled rifles are in common use?

The lawsuit cites that as of May 2021, there were 532,725 short-barreled rifles registered with the ATF. This large number is used to argue that SBRs are in common use for lawful purposes, thus protected by the Second Amendment.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Washington Gun Law

View all →