An ATF loss in the Northern District is not a repeal.
On August 5, 2026, Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered a permanent injunction in Silencer Shop Found. v. ATF, No. 6:25-CV-056-H (N.D. Tex.).1 The injunction bars ATF from enforcing specified NFA registration, application, and criminal provisions against the plaintiffs and their covered counterparties. Covered silencers started moving without a Form 4. The inference being drawn on some sales floors is that Form 4 is finished.
The inference does not hold.
The argument is simple. An unappealed loss to SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC, and the other plaintiffs does not estop the United States from enforcing the National Firearms Act against a different dealer, a different buyer, or a later criminal defendant. United States v. Mendoza, 464 U.S. 154 (1984). The injunction is in effect. For covered counterparties, it is a real constraint on ATF. It does not remove Form 4 from the Code.
What the Court Enjoined
The National Firearms Act was upheld as a tax. Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, 513–14 (1937). The Fifth Circuit treated the criminal overlay the same way. Section 5861(d) is part of the web of regulation aiding enforcement of the transfer tax. United States v. Ross, 458 F.2d 1144, 1145 (5th Cir. 1972). Congress reduced the NFA transfer and making taxes to $0, effective January 1, 2026, for silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and firearms that fall within any other weapon classification. It left Form 4 and the crimes in § 5861 in the Code.
Judge Hendrix held that specified NFA registration, application, and criminal provisions exceed Congress’s enumerated powers as to those untaxed categories. He refused a nationwide ban. The Final Judgment reaches the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members, and current and future customers, and only their transactions with those parties.2 The injunction reaches Texas, its agencies, and its political subdivisions, not a private Texan by residence. A SilencerCo logo does not create personal coverage. Customer coverage follows the transaction, not every NFA firearm the buyer owns or later acquires. Complete relief is not universal relief. Trump v. CASA, Inc., 145 S. Ct. 2540, 2557 (2025).
The Stay and the Appeal Window
Clock One was the seven-day stay. It expired August 12. The injunction took effect August 13. The Department of Justice did not seek a stay pending appeal. Clock Two is Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). When the United States is a party, the notice of appeal is due sixty days after entry of judgment, here October 5, 2026. Fed. R. App. P. 26(a)(1)(C). Letting the stay expire is not a waiver of the right to appeal. As of August 27, 2026, no public notice of appeal appears to have been filed. The clocks decide what is operative now. They do not decide the statute. Mendoza does.
United States v. Mendoza
Mendoza was not a gun case. It was a naturalization case. A district court had ruled against the United States. The government did not appeal. A later petitioner tried to use that unappealed loss to stop the United States from relitigating the issue. The Supreme Court reversed, unanimously. Nonmutual offensive collateral estoppel does not apply against the government. Mendoza, 464 U.S. at 162. A first loss in one district does not freeze the issue against the rest of the country. Id. at 159–61.
That is this docket. Judge Hendrix binds the parties in front of him. He does not vacate 26 U.S.C. §§ 5812 or 5861. The judgment is not Fifth Circuit precedent, and it is not a rule ATF must apply to a non-party FFL in Dallas or a later defendant in a § 5861 prosecution.
Form 4 After the Injunction
The injunction now bars ATF from enforcing the enjoined provisions against covered parties on covered items. That bar lasts until the judgment is stayed or reversed, not until the October 5 appeal deadline. Covered silencers in that chain can move without a Form 4 if the dealer will transact. The Gun Control Act was never at issue. Form 4473 and NICS remain. Short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns still need a Form 4 path because 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4) independently bars delivery to a non-licensee without Attorney General authorization. Any other weapon classification is inside the Silencer Shop Foundation injunction, not Jensen. Pending $0 Form 4s remain the cheap insurance policy.
If no appeal is filed, SilencerCo and the other covered counterparties keep a durable, party-specific shield. Everyone else still faces the statute. The practical ATF lever is often license revocation for willful Gun Control Act recordkeeping, A&D books and 4473s that treat an NFA firearm as a GCA firearm, not a headline § 5861 indictment.
District-court law is not circuit law. Circuit law is not a repeal. If Clock Two expires with nothing filed, the default is a durable shield for the parties and an intact criminal statute for everyone else.
As always, this Freeman Law Insights blog contains legal information, not legal advice. Coverage under the injunction is fact-specific. Confirm the docket before a compliance team relies on the current injunction and appeal posture.
Notes
[1] Silencer Shop Found. v. ATF, No. 6:25-CV-056-H (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2026), consolidated with Jensen v. ATF, No. 6:26-CV-227, a related case transferred to the Northern District of Texas.
[2] Final Judgment at 1–2, ECF No. 137.
