Please note the author is not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

Executive Summary

Between 2025 and 2026, the regulatory landscape for the small arms industry, federal firearms licensees (FFLs), and consumers underwent a major realignment. Following several judicial defeats and significant legislative tax changes, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has shifted its enforcement strategy and begun a substantial rewrite of its administrative regulations¹.

Federal courts consistently ruled that major agency rulemakings, specifically those regarding pistol stabilizing braces, forced reset triggers, and unfinished frames and receivers, exceeded statutory authority or were unconstitutionally vague⁵. Simultaneously, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21) eliminated the $200 National Firearms Act (NFA) making and transfer tax for most items as of January 1, 2026⁸. This legislative shift led to a landmark ruling in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, which barred the federal government from enforcing registration requirements for these untaxed items against covered plaintiffs¹⁰.

In response, the ATF launched a “New Era of Reform” in early 2026. This package of 34 rules aims to rescind unenforceable regulations, modernize electronic recordkeeping, and authorize non-over-the-counter transfers⁴. This report analyzes these legal adjustments and provides actionable compliance workflows for FFLs and buyers navigating the 2026 market.

1. The Vacatur of the Stabilizing Brace Rule

1.1 Context and Judicial Defeat

In January 2023, the ATF’s Final Rule 2021R-08F reclassified millions of braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBRs) under the NFA¹. This change subjected an estimated 40 million owners to potential felony charges unless they registered their firearms, paid a $200 tax, or destroyed the brace⁵. The rule used a subjective “multi-factor test” to determine if a firearm was intended to be fired from the shoulder¹.

By 2024, appellate courts found the rule arbitrary and capricious, noting it lacked objective standards^{1, 14}. A nationwide vacatur was issued in Mock v. Garland, and by July 2025, the DOJ formally ceased its appeal, ending the rule’s enforcement permanently⁵.

1.2 ATF’s 2026 Regulatory Reversion

The ATF formally rescinded the brace rule in May 2026 through NPRM 1140-AA98. The agency cited the court-identified violations and restored regulatory definitions to align with the original statutory text of the GCA and NFA².

Despite the rule’s demise, the ATF indicated in court filings, specifically in a March 2026 brief for State of Texas v. ATF, that it retains case-by-case statutory authority under the underlying NFA to classify configurations that appear clearly designed to be fired from the shoulder, even without the 2023 regulatory framework⁵. This assertion drew immediate pushback from lawmakers, with a group of 13 U.S. senators challenging the agency’s lingering enforcement posture⁵. However, without the codified factoring criteria, the agency lacks a formalized, broad regulatory mechanism to reclassify standard braced pistols en masse.

1.3 Practical Mechanics and Compliance Example

Compliance has reverted to historical norms. Standard braced pistols are once again classified as pistols, meaning buyers do not need to submit NFA paperwork or payments for standard configurations^{5, 16}.

For example, a buyer purchasing a standard AR-15 style pistol with a brace now processes the transaction via a standard Form 4473 and NICS check. FFLs no longer bear the burden of extended NFA wait times or the risk of subjective classification for these items¹.

2. Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs): Rejecting the Machine Gun Classification

2.1 Context and Judicial Defeat

In March 2022, the ATF classified forced reset triggers (FRTs) as “machine guns,” arguing that their mechanical assistance allowed automatic fire with a “single function of the trigger”²⁰. This reclassification overnight criminalized the possession of standard components manufactured after 1986²¹.

The Supreme Court’s 2024 decision in Garland v. Cargill dismantled this logic, ruling that the ATF exceeded its authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns². Lower courts applied this to FRTs, noting the trigger must still independently reset for each shot⁶. By May 2025, the DOJ settled the litigation, returning FRTs to federal legality²³.

2.2 Practical Mechanics and Compliance Example

Despite federal legality, FRTs face a patchwork of state-level bans. Compliance requires FFLs to utilize geo-fenced shipping filters to avoid jurisdictions with restrictive “rate-of-fire” or “combination of parts” statutes^{25, 20}.

For an FFL operating an e-commerce platform, selling FRTs requires strict compliance filters. While an FFL in Texas can legally stock and sell FRTs over the counter, shipping that same device to a buyer in New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut poses severe legal risks. These states have clear “combination of parts” laws and constructive possession clauses that ban components designed to assemble a machine gun or increase the rate of fire under state definitions²⁰.

A compliant retailer in 2026 must utilize geo-fenced shipping restrictions, prominently publish their shipping policies regarding trigger-activation devices, and actively decline sales to jurisdictions with locality carve-outs²⁰. Furthermore, industry analysts recommend that buyers and sellers avoid irreversible payment methods, such as wire transfers or cryptocurrency, which are often associated with non-compliant or fraudulent vendors operating in the regulatory gray areas surrounding controversial accessories²⁰.

3. The Frame or Receiver Rule: As-Applied Constitutional Injunctions

3.1 The Supreme Court Facial Ruling (VanDerStok)

The ATF’s 2022 “Ghost Gun” rule redefined “firearm” to include parts kits that “may readily be converted” to expel a projectile^{25, 27}. This allowed the agency to regulate blocks of metal or plastic based on extrinsic factors like marketing or instructions²⁸.

In 2025, the Supreme Court upheld the rule’s facial validity in Bondi v. VanDerStok but noted that some products are too far from finished frames to be regulated^{27, 7}. This allowed for “as-applied” constitutional challenges.

3.2 The District Court Injunction (Defense Distributed v. Blanche)

Following the Supreme Court’s remand, the constitutional challenges proceeded in the Northern District of Texas. On August 17, 2026, Chief Judge Reed O’Connor issued an opinion and order in Defense Distributed v. Blanche (the successor case to VanDerStok), granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs⁷.

In August 2026, a district court ruled the rule unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment, finding that the term “readily” lacked a clear threshold^{7, 29}. The court also found the rule violated the Second Amendment by contradicting the historical tradition of personal gunsmithing⁷.

Furthermore, the court ruled that the regulations violated the Second Amendment. Using the historical tradition test from Bruen, the court looked at the DOJ’s historical analogues, which included colonial barrel-proofing requirements and gunpowder-storage laws⁷. The court said that these old laws were more about keeping people safe and preventing accidents than about stopping crime or finding missing parts. Concluding that the rule contradicted the actual historical tradition of unregulated personal gunsmithing and self-manufacture of firearms, the court struck down the provisions as applied to the plaintiffs⁷.

3.3 Practical Mechanics and Compliance Example

The resulting order from Judge O’Connor did not vacate the frame and receiver rule nationwide. Instead, it resulted in a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction protecting only the specific plaintiffs (Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation) and their current and future members²⁹. The permanent injunction explicitly covered specific Defense Distributed products, such as their M1911 80% Frames, G80 Build Kits, and unfinished receivers⁷.

This creates a bifurcated compliance environment for FFLs and buyers. If a consumer is an active, verified member of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the ATF cannot enforce the 2022 frame or receiver serialization and background check requirements against them when they acquire a covered Defense Distributed 80% frame²⁹. However, if a non-member attempts to purchase a generic partially complete receiver from a non-plaintiff vendor, the 2022 ATF rule remains in full effect²⁹.

For the non-member, the item is legally a firearm, must bear a serial number applied by a licensed manufacturer, and must be transferred via an FFL utilizing a Form 4473 and a NICS check³¹. FFLs operating in this space must institute rigorous verification protocols to confirm both the specific membership status of the buyer and the exact product origin before executing any unserialized transfer of an 80% kit, ensuring they fall within the protective bounds of the injunction and do not inadvertently commit a federal firearms violation³².

4. The Elimination of the NFA Tax and the Collapse of Registration

4.1 The One Big Beautiful Bill Act

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21) reduced the NFA transfer tax to $0 for silencers, SBRs, and SBSs, effective January 1, 2026⁸. Initially, the ATF maintained that all registration requirements remained mandatory despite the $0 tax³.

Initially, the industry viewed this legislation purely as a financial reprieve for consumers, removing a barrier to entry that had existed since 1934³. In late December 2025, the ATF temporarily shut down its eForms system to reconfigure the software and update tax fields to reflect the $0 balance, while still requiring the entire NFA regulatory process, including Form 1 and Form 4 applications, fingerprint cards, passport photographs, and the waiting period for ATF pre-approval. Form 1, used for making an NFA firearm, was also revised to remove the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) notification requirement and expand digital signature capabilities³⁷.

4.2 Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and the Constitutional Ruling

Plaintiffs in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF successfully argued that because the NFA was enacted under Congress’s power to tax, reducing the tax to $0 stripped the registration scheme of its constitutional basis^{10, 11}. In August 2026, the court enjoined registration requirements for untaxed items for covered parties⁴³.

On August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas agreed. In a 66-page opinion, the court ruled that the NFA’s registration, application, and pre-approval requirements for untaxed items exceeded Congress’s enumerated powers and were unconstitutional¹¹. Judge Hendrix explicitly rejected the DOJ’s attempt to retroactively justify the registry using the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, noting that the NFA resides entirely within Title 26 (the Internal Revenue Code) and was structured clearly as a tax measure¹⁰. The court entered a permanent injunction but stayed its effect for seven days to allow the government to seek appellate relief. The DOJ failed to file a notice of appeal or seek an emergency stay within that window, resulting in the permanent injunction taking full effect on August 13, 2026⁴³.

4.3 Practical Mechanics: Suppressors vs. SBRs/SBSs

The application of the Silencer Shop injunction is highly nuanced. It is not a nationwide repeal of the National Firearms Act. The injunction protects only the named plaintiffs, their agencies, political subdivisions, and their current and future members and qualifying customers (e.g., Gun Owners of America members and Silencer Shop customers)¹⁰. For any citizen not covered by these specific plaintiff groups, the full NFA Form 4 process and its associated felony penalties remain fully enforceable¹⁰.

Furthermore, the injunction creates a clear difference in how suppressors and SBRs or SBSs are transferred, due to overlapping statutes in the Gun Control Act (Title 18).

• Suppressors: In “Free States,” covered buyers can acquire suppressors as Title I firearms via a standard Form 4473 and NICS check, bypassing NFA registration entirely⁴⁴.
• SBRs/SBSs: While registration is enjoined, separate GCA requirements for “Attorney General authorization” lead FFLs to continue using the Form 4 process (at $0 tax) for these items to avoid federal violations^{32, 44}.
• State Law Conflicts: Historically, fifteen states (including Michigan, Ohio, and Washington) had laws that made lawful possession of a suppressor depend on federal NFA registration, but advocacy groups successfully removed these laws in three of those states in 2026¹⁰. In these remaining jurisdictions, utilizing the federal injunction to bypass the Form 4 process renders the suppressor illegal under state law, as the state safe harbor requires the physical federal tax stamp or approval paperwork⁵¹. FFLs in these remaining states must continue filing Form 4s for all transfers to protect their customers from state-level prosecution.
• Interstate Transport: The injunction did not strike down 26 U.S.C. § 5861(j), which prohibits the interstate transport, delivery, or receipt of an unregistered NFA firearm¹⁰. Therefore, covered owners possessing an unregistered suppressor acquired purely via a 4473 transfer risk federal prosecution if they transport it across state lines, even if traveling to another “Free State,” or if they ship it to a manufacturer for warranty repair⁴⁴. Additionally, under the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4) still requires explicit authorization for the interstate transportation of short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns, meaning buyers cannot move them across state lines without ATF permission, regardless of the injunction⁵⁰.

5. ATF’s “New Era of Reform”: The 2026 Rulemaking Package

Facing a landscape where multiple high-profile regulations had been vacated and the core of the NFA was fracturing under judicial scrutiny, the ATF altered its posture. In late April and early May 2026, the agency published a major package of 34 regulatory actions, branded the “New Era of Reform,” designed to align with statutory text, reduce administrative burdens, and modernize the industry¹³. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche referred to this as the most comprehensive regulatory reform package in the agency’s history⁵⁴.

5.1 Redefining “Willfully” and Ending Zero Tolerance (RIN 1140-AA88)

Under previous “Zero Tolerance” policies, FFLs faced license revocation for minor clerical errors^{55, 4}. NPRM 1140-AA88 proposes a more precise definition of “willfully,” requiring proof that an FFL acted with actual knowledge of illegality or deliberate indifference⁵⁶. This shift protects compliant dealers from losing their livelihoods over simple paperwork mistakes.

Through NPRM 1140-AA88, the ATF proposed defining “willfully” in the civil and administrative context to match the prevailing standard established by federal appellate courts. The proposed definition clarifies that an FFL acts willfully only when they act with “actual knowledge that the person’s conduct is unlawful” and either intentionally engage in the forbidden conduct or act with deliberate indifference to their legal obligations⁵⁶. This officially ends the practice of revoking licenses for simple transcription errors or isolated administrative oversights that result from inadvertent error, thereby protecting the livelihoods of compliant dealers⁴.

5.2 Modernization of Retail Operations and Recordkeeping

The “Modernize” and “Reduce Burden” groups of the regulatory package focus heavily on updating the compliance framework to reflect current technology and business practices¹².

• Non-Over-the-Counter (NOTC) Sales (RIN 1140-AB05): A highly significant update for modern retail, this proposed rule formally authorizes FFLs to conduct remote sales to residents of the same state¹². Recognizing the advancement of secure digital verification technology, FFLs are permitted to utilize remote platforms for photo identification and residency verification. Provided a NICS background check is completed and documented, FFLs can facilitate online sales, layaway pickups, and direct in-state shipping without requiring the buyer to physically visit the storefront, expanding e-commerce capabilities while maintaining Brady Act safeguards¹².
• Electronic Recordkeeping Defaults (RIN 1140-AA94): The ATF formalized authorization for FFLs to generate, maintain, and store Form 4473s and Acquisition and Disposition (A&D) bound books entirely electronically by default¹². This includes the integration of digital document attachments. Previously, FFLs utilizing digital bound books were often required to maintain separate physical files for supporting documents like state permits or supplementary residency proof. This rule standardizes electronic recordkeeping, reducing transcription errors and manual data entry¹².
• Record Retention Limits (RIN 1140-AA95): The ATF proposed eliminating the requirement that FFLs retain Form 4473s and A&D records indefinitely for the life of the license². Acknowledging the physical storage burden on dealers, the proposal establishes defined retention periods of either 20 or 30 years for primary records. Furthermore, the rule mandates only a 90-day retention period for private-party transfer records and voluntary firearm handler checks and a 5-year retention period for multiple sales reports and incomplete transactions¹².

5.3 NFA Burden Reductions and Alignments

The regulatory package also addresses administrative friction points within the NFA framework.

• NFA Interstate Transport (RIN 1140-AA89): Seeking to reduce delays for lawful owners, this proposal eliminates the requirement for individuals to submit an ATF Form 5320.20 and await approval prior to transporting registered NFA firearms across state lines for short-term trips of 365 days or fewer (e.g., for hunting trips, training courses, or temporary relocations)⁵⁹. Long-term or permanent relocations still require notification to the ATF to update the registry, but no longer require the owner to wait for pre-approval before moving⁶².
• Spousal Joint Registration (RIN 1140-AB00): To reduce the administrative complexity and legal expense of establishing an NFA Gun Trust solely for family possession, this proposal allows married couples to file a joint application as makers or transferees of NFA firearms. Under this joint registration, both spouses can lawfully possess the firearm, and a transfer between the spouses would not constitute a separate NFA transfer requiring additional paperwork⁵⁹.
• Rescinding “Engaged in the Business” (RIN 1140-AB01): Following legal challenges and an admission that the expanded definitions failed to produce anticipated enforcement outcomes regarding licensing and civil forfeitures, the ATF proposed rolling back the “rebuttable presumptions” it previously applied to determine who must possess a dealer’s license. The rule reverts to the strict statutory language codified by Congress in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA)².
• Machine Gun Definition Revision (RIN 1140-AA60): Acting as a direct consequence of the Supreme Court’s binding legal interpretation in Garland v. Cargill, the ATF issued a proposed rule removing the two sentences from the regulatory definition of a “machine gun” that had unlawfully incorporated non-mechanical bump stocks².

6. Conclusion

The 2026 landscape reflects a significant contraction of executive power. Courts have rejected subjective “factoring tests” for reclassifying firearms, while legislative tax reforms have undermined the NFA’s registration foundation. The result is a fractured but more modernized compliance environment.

In response, the ATF’s “New Era of Reform” signifies a substantial operational pivot. By adopting the appellate courts’ civil definition of “willfully,” authorizing Non-Over-the-Counter digital sales, and formalizing electronic recordkeeping with defined retention limits, the agency is transitioning from an adversarial enforcement posture to a modernized, compliance-supportive framework aligned strictly with the statutory text provided by Congress.

For FFLs and compliance specialists, the primary challenge in 2026 is no longer adapting to rapidly expanding federal regulations, but rather navigating a highly fragmented legal environment. An FFL must now determine compliance based on a matrix of variables: the buyer’s specific organizational membership, the state of residency, the exact product origin, and the distinct statutory differences between firearms (such as the GCA requirements for SBRs versus suppressors). Navigating these divergent pathways safely requires rigorous, documented verification protocols and a precise understanding of which federal provisions were, and were not, enjoined by the courts.

Master Summary Table: Key 2026 Compliance Shifts

Regulatory Subject	Court / Legislative Catalyst	2026 Status & ATF Action	Practical Impact for FFLs & Buyers
Stabilizing Braces	Mock v. Bondi (Vacatur)	Rescinded. ATF proposed RIN 1140-AA98 to remove factoring criteria from CFR.	Braced pistols transfer as standard handguns via Form 4473. No NFA Form 4 or wait times required.
Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs)	NAGR v. Garland / Cargill	Legalized Federally. DOJ settled; machine gun classification dropped.	Sold over-the-counter as accessories. FFLs must still restrict shipping to states with “combination of parts” bans.
80% Frames / Receivers	VanDerStok (SCOTUS) & Defense Distributed (N.D. Tex)	Enforced with Exceptions. SCOTUS upheld rule facially; Judge O’Connor enjoined it as-applied to specific plaintiffs.	Unserialized 80% kits can only be transferred without 4473/NICS to verified members of protected plaintiff groups (e.g., SAF). Others require standard serialized transfer.
Suppressors (Silencers)	One Big Beautiful Bill Act & Silencer Shop v. ATF	$0 Tax / Registration Enjoined (For Covered Parties). NFA registration unconstitutional for untaxed items.	In 27 “Free States”, covered members acquire suppressors via 4473/NICS only (no Form 4). In states that still tie legality to NFA registration, Form 4 is still required to comply with state law.
SBRs / SBSs	One Big Beautiful Bill Act & Silencer Shop v. ATF	$0 Tax / Form 4 practically required. Registration enjoined, but GCA § 922(b)(4) remains.	Despite the injunction on registration, FFLs must still process via Form 4 to satisfy the separate GCA requirement for “Attorney General authorization” to transfer.
Dealer License Revocations	Federal Appellate Precedent	“Zero Tolerance” Ended. ATF proposed RIN 1140-AA88 to define “willfully”.	FFLs protected from license revocation for inadvertent clerical errors. ATF must prove actual knowledge of illegality or deliberate indifference.
Remote Firearm Sales	ATF “New Era of Reform”	NOTC Authorized. ATF proposed RIN 1140-AB05 for Non-Over-the-Counter sales.	FFLs can verify ID/residency digitally and ship firearms directly to in-state residents following a NICS check, without a physical storefront visit.
Record Retention Limits	ATF “New Era of Reform”	Indefinite Storage Ended. ATF proposed RIN 1140-AA95.	FFLs only required to retain Form 4473s and A&D bound books for 20 or 30 years, rather than for the life of the license.
NFA Interstate Travel	ATF “New Era of Reform”	Prior Approval Removed. ATF proposed RIN 1140-AA89.	Owners can transport registered NFA items interstate for up to 365 days without submitting Form 5320.20 for prior ATF approval.

---

Please share the link on Facebook, Forums, with colleagues, etc. Your support is much appreciated and if you have any feedback, please email us in**@*********ps.com. If you’d like to request a report or order a reprint, please click here for the corresponding page to open in new tab.

---

Sources Used

1. Understanding the ATF Pistol Brace Rule: 2025 Update for FFLs, https://www.fflguard.com/atf-pistol-brace-rule/
2. Repeal | ATF, https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/atf-launches-new-era-reform/repeal
3. NFA Tax Stamp (2026 Update) for FFLs – FastBound, https://www.fastbound.com/nfa-tax-stamp/
4. ATF’s New Era of Reform, https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/atf-launches-new-era-reform
5. ATF Pistol Stabilizing Brace Rule 2026: Smart Owner Guide, https://guncarrier.com/atf-pistol-stabilizing-brace-rule-2026/
6. Garland v. Cargill & FRT Triggers: What the Supreme Court Ruling, https://www.artakedowntool.com/blogs/blogs/garland-v-cargill-frt-trigger
7. Federal Judge Rules Biden-Era ‘Ghost Gun’ Rule Unconstitutional, https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/federal-judge-rules-biden-era-ghost-gun-rule-unconstitutional-44830060
8. NFA Tax Stamp Removal – FFLGuard, https://www.fflguard.com/nfa-tax-stamp/
9. One Big Beautiful Bill Act – Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Big_Beautiful_Bill_Act
10. Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration for Suppressors, https://suppressor.org/news/federal-court-strikes-down-nfa-registration-for-suppressors
11. Federal Court Strikes Down Key National Firearms Act Restrictions, https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/federal-court-strikes-down-key-national-firearms-act-restrictions/
12. ATF Changes 2026: New Era of Reform Package and 34 New Rules, https://www.fastbound.com/atf-changes/
13. DOJ/ATF Announce A New Director & Welcome Changes – FFLGuard, https://www.fflguard.com/doj-atf-announce-a-new-director-welcome-changes/
14. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/06/2026-08930/removing-factoring-criteria-for-firearms-with-attached-stabilizing-braces
15. U.S. Court of Appeals Issues Limited Temporary Injunction on ATF, https://www.dfwnlaw.com/u-s-court-of-appeals-issues-limited-temporary-injunction-on-atf-final-rule-2021r-08f
16. Brace Rule Vacated – CAA Gear Up – CAA USA, https://caagearup.com/brace-rule-vacated/
17. View Rule – Reginfo.gov, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202510&RIN=1140-AA98
18. DOJ Legal Filing Renews Concerns About ATF’s Posture on Braced, https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260320/doj-legal-filing-renews-concerns-about-atf-s-posture-on-braced-pistols
19. ATF Still Claims Authority Over Braced Pistols, https://rallyforourrights.com/atf-still-claims-authority-over-braced-pistols/
20. Forced Reset Triggers in 2026: Legality, State-by-State Risk Factors, https://nspecinnovations.com/blog/forced-reset-triggers-in-2026-legality-statebystate-risk-factors-and-what-buyers-should-know/
21. ATF Open Letter Regarding Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs) Gearfire, https://gogearfire.com/blog/what-you-should-know-atf-open-letter-regarding-forced-reset-triggers-frts/
22. Are FRT Triggers Legal in Texas? 2026 Complete Guide, https://www.artakedowntool.com/blogs/blogs/frt-trigger-texas-legal
23. Department of Justice Announces Settlement of Litigation Between, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-announces-settlement-litigation-between-federal-government-and-rare-breed
24. Department of Justice Closes Cases Over Forced Reset Triggers, https://www.pewpewtactical.com/rare-breed-atf-frt-15-trigger/
25. VanDerStok Explained: What the Ruling Does and Doesn’t Do, https://www.80percentarms.com/blog/vanderstok-explained-what-the-ruling-does-and-doesnt-do/
26. Bondi v. VanDerStok – Ballotpedia, https://ballotpedia.org/Bondi_v._VanDerStok
27. Bondi v. Vanderstok | 604 U.S. ___ (2025) – Justia Supreme Court, https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/604/23-852/
28. VanDerStok et al v. Garland et al, 4:2022cv00691 – Document 330, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txndce/4:2022cv00691/366145/330/
29. Federal Judge Rules ATF Frame-and-Receiver Rule, https://community.usconcealedcarry.com/t/federal-judge-rules-atf-frame-and-receiver-rule-unconstitutional-in-defense-distributed-case/132729
30. ATF Ghost Gun Rule Struck Down: What It Means for 80% Lowers, https://www.rifleconfigurator.com/articles/atf-frame-receiver-rule-struck-down
31. Federal judge strikes down Biden-era ‘ghost gun’ restrictions, https://signalscv.com/2026/08/federal-judge-strikes-down-biden-era-ghost-gun-restrictions/
32. Federal Court Enjoins Key NFA Rules for Certain Plaintiffs, Members, https://schwennlaw.com/resources/insights/federal-court-enjoins-key-nfa-rules/
33. Changes to National Firearms Act Tax Remittance Provisions, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/08/2026-09155/changes-to-national-firearms-act-tax-remittance-provisions
34. Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration for Suppressors, https://americansuppressorassociation.com/news/federal-court-strikes-down-nfa-registration-for-suppressors
35. ATF eForms Explained: Form 4, Form 1, and NFA Filing, https://www.silencershop.com/understanding-atf-eforms
36. ATF eForms Submissions are Halted until January 1, 2026, https://www.nationalguntrusts.com/blogs/nfa-gun-trust-atf-information-database-blog/atf-eforms-submissions-are-halted-until-january-1-2026
37. ATF NFA Form Changes Begin January 1, 2026 – Orchid Advisors, https://orchidadvisors.com/important-reminder-atf-nfa-form-changes-temporary-eforms-blackout/
38. ATF NFA Form 1 Changes 2026: What You Need to Know – FastBound, https://www.fastbound.com/ffl-blog/atf-nfa-form-1-changes/
39. $0 Tax Left NFA with No Constitutional Basis – Independent Institute, https://www.independent.org/article/2026/08/11/0-tax-left-nfa-with-no-constitutional-basis/
40. Analysis: Why Gun Owners of America Says the New $0 National, https://thereload.com/analysis-why-gun-owners-of-america-says-the-new-0-national-firearms-tax-is-unconstitutional/
41. Federal judge guts provision of National Firearms Act in victory for, https://sentinelksmo.org/judge-guts-provision-national-firearms-act/
42. A Victory That Ends A Gun Registry | An Official Journal Of The NRA, https://www.americanrifleman.org/content/a-victory-that-ends-a-gun-registry/
43. NFA Registration Ruled Unconstitutional: What It Means – Gun Talk, https://www.guntalk.com/post/a-federal-judge-just-called-nfa-registration-unconstitutional
44. NFA Injunction In Effect – Join Now – Be Covered, https://americansuppressorassociation.com/news/nfa-injunction-in-effect-join-now-be-covered
45. The NFA Injunction Is In Effect ,  Here’s Who It Actually Covers, https://www.thearmories.com/blog/the-nfa-injunction-is-in-effect-heres-who-it-actually-covers
46. Texas Judge Delivers Major Win Against NFA Registry for, https://www.shastaunfiltered.com/post/texas-judge-delivers-major-win-against-nfa-registry-for-suppressors-and-short-barreled-firearms
47. ‘Confusing for Everyone.’ Suppressor Sales Boom Even as Many, https://www.outdoorlife.com/guns/suppressor-deregulation-chaos/
48. What the August 2026 NFA Ruling Decision Means for Suppressor, https://tuna-cans.com/what-the-august-2026-nfa-ruling-decision-means-for-suppressor-buyers/
49. NFA Ruling Update 2026 | Suppressors, SBRs, SBSs & AOWs, https://texasgunsinc.com/nfa-ruling-update-2026
50. What Does the Texas NFA Decision Mean for You? – NRA-ILA, https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260812/what-does-the-texas-nfa-decision-mean-for-you
51. How NFA Deregulation affects your state – Silencer Central, https://www.silencercentral.com/blog/how-nfa-deregulation-affects-your-state-law/
52. Are Suppressors Legal in Michigan? 2026 Silencer Laws – SilencerCo, https://silencerco.com/blog/michigan-suppressor-laws
53. NSSF Guidance on NFA Transfers, https://www.nssf.org/articles/nssf-guidance-on-nfa-transfers/
54. August 4, 2026 – Illinois Attorney General, https://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/News-Room/Current-News/2026.08.04%20-%20Brady%20Act%20Exception%20Comment.pdf?language_id=1
55. LET’S END “ZERO TOLERANCE” FOREVER! – GOA, https://www.gunowners.org/na20260708/
56. 1 August 4, 2026 Via Federal eRulemaking Portal and U.S. Mail The, https://illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/News-Room/Current-News/2026.08.04%20-%20States%20AG%20Comment%20re%20ATF%20NPRM%20–%20Willfully%20Definition%20(file).pdf?language_id=1
57. Defining “Willfully” for Firearms Violations – Federal Register, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/08/2026-09159/defining-willfully-for-firearms-violations
58. Modernize – ATF, https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/atf-launches-new-era-reform/modernize
59. ATF Poised to Publish Landmark Regulatory Reform Package for, https://firearmsresearchcenter.org/forum/regulatory-update-atf-poised-to-publish-landmark-regulatory-reform-package-for-firearms-and-ammunition-controls/
60. Revising Non-Over-the-Counter Firearms Transaction Requirements, https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/rulemaking-notices/revising-non-over-counter-firearms-transaction-requirements-rin-1140-ab05
61. Regulatory Alert: Deadlines Loom for ATF Proposed Rulemakings, https://firearmsresearchcenter.org/forum/regulatory-alert-deadlines-loom-for-atf-proposed-rulemakings/
62. ATF Rule Changes [2026]: What Gun Owners Need to Know, https://www.pewpewtactical.com/atf-rule-changes/
63. View Rule – Reginfo.gov, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=202510&RIN=1140-AA89
64. Interstate Transport and Temporary Export of National Firearms Act, https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/FR-2026-05-08/2026-09161
65. Rulemaking – ATF, https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/federal-register-actions/rulemaking