Trump Orders DOJ Not to Appeal Ruling Loosening 90-Year-Old Gun Restrictions

President Trump has ordered the Justice Department not to appeal a federal court ruling that dismantles restrictions on firearms that have been tightly controlled for more than nine decades. The decision, confirmed to CBS News by sources with knowledge of the matter, will allow Americans to more freely possess and sell short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and silencers—weapons that have required detailed federal applications, fingerprinting, and ATF registration since the National Firearms Act became law in 1934.

The ruling came from U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee in the Northern District of Texas, who determined in August that most of the restrictions on these specialized firearms exceed Congress's constitutional authority. The judge's reasoning hinged on a provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed last year, which eliminated a $200 tax on the transfer or manufacture of weapons regulated under the National Firearms Act. By removing the government's taxing power over these arms, Hendrix concluded, the regulatory framework that had rested on that tax authority could no longer stand. Trump himself decided against appealing the decision, and he has also told Republican members of Congress in recent weeks that he would ensure the Justice Department did not contest it.

The move contradicts the advice of multiple career and politically appointed lawyers within the Justice Department, who have warned that allowing the ruling to stand already disrupts federal firearms prosecutions across the country. These attorneys have cited the department's longstanding "duty to defend"—a legal principle holding that the Justice Department has a constitutional obligation to defend laws enacted by Congress when reasonable arguments can be made in their support. A Justice Department official said the department intends to notify Congress that it will not appeal. The ATF, meanwhile, announced it will issue guidance to implement the court's order.

The scope of the ruling is narrower than it might initially appear. It applies only to the parties in the lawsuit—15 red states and gun rights organizations including the Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation—though the judge extended coverage to current and future members of those groups. The decision does not touch the nation's most common firearms, such as AR-15s and Glock pistols, which remain regulated under different federal law. Machine guns and explosive devices also remain subject to the National Firearms Act's primary restrictions. Critically, the prohibition on felons and other prohibited persons from owning firearms persists regardless of the ruling.

The practical consequences are already visible in federal prosecutions. In one case in the Middle District of Alabama, the Justice Department dismissed an indictment against a man named Cameron Silmon, who was charged with knowingly receiving a silencer without a serial number, after his defense attorney argued that Silmon had joined one of the plaintiff gun rights groups after the Texas judge issued the injunction. The prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General Bren McMaken, wrote that the government disagreed with the claim that a Texas judge could prevent federal prosecutors in Alabama from enforcing federal law, but the government dropped the charge anyway. Silmon now faces different charges, including illegal possession of a machine gun, which remains covered by the National Firearms Act.

Historically, the weapons affected by this ruling have been uncommon in criminal investigations. Between 2017 and 2021, firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act accounted for roughly 5 percent of closed gun-trafficking investigations, according to ATF data. Yet high-profile cases have involved them: Luigi Mangione, who pleaded guilty last month to killing UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson on a Manhattan street, used a silencer on his weapon. Emma Brown, executive director of the gun control organization GIFFORDS, characterized the decision not to appeal as a "failure to defend public safety," warning that it could return the country to an era when silencers and short-barreled shotguns were tools of organized crime.

The deadline to appeal the ruling is October 5. Even if the Justice Department does not appeal, other parties—states, counties, or interested organizations—could potentially ask the court for permission to intervene and appeal on their own. Congress could also reinstate the tax or pass new legislation to regulate these weapons, though doing so would likely require Democrats to control both the House and Senate. Jeffrey Cohen, a former associate chief counsel at the ATF, observed that the tax provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act "may ultimately do what no court, no Congress, and no administration has done in ninety years eliminate: the National Firearms Act, one of the primary American gun laws."