Rep. Andrew Clyde led nearly 50 House and Senate Republican colleagues in asking Attorney General Todd Blanche not to appeal a Texas federal court ruling that struck down NFA registration requirements for untaxed firearms. The letter also presses the Department of Justice to apply the decision nationwide and begin rulemaking to lock in the change.
The request landed while the court’s order is still fresh. On August 5, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, consolidated with Jensen v. ATF, and found the NFA registration rules could not stand for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and any other weapons. Clyde’s side is trying to turn that ruling from a case-specific win into a national shift before the seven-day window for appellate relief closes.
That is the point of the letter: do not fight the ruling, make it uniform, and then write it into the regulations. The lawmakers say the Department of Justice should seek official rulemaking to formally rescind or amend the challenged rules as they apply to $0 NFA tax firearms, a step they argue would spare law-abiding gun owners and businesses from a patchwork of enforcement. House.gov said the letter had 46 representatives among its cosigners, including Brian Babin, Andy Biggs, Sheri Biggs, Lauren Boebert and Josh Brecheen.
The friction is built into the timeline. The court order gives the Department of Justice seven days to seek relief at the appellate level, yet the lawmakers want the ruling treated as if it already governs everywhere. Clyde says that is the only workable path, because a split system would force DOJ and ATF to treat identical conduct differently depending on who is asking for relief. In his view, that would leave the government defending a rule a federal court has already rejected while the clock still runs on the next move.
Congress enacted the NFA in 1934, and the letter casts this fight as the latest test of how far the government can go in regulating weapons tied to the Second Amendment. For now, the immediate question is not whether the ruling matters; it already does. The question is whether DOJ lets it stand, or uses the final days of the appeal window to try to narrow it before any nationwide rulemaking can begin.
