Anti-Second Amendment groups criticized a Trump-appointed Texas judge’s August 5 ruling that struck down registration and paperwork rules for suppressors, using a misleading term.
United States District Judge James Wesley Hendrix’s ruling that the registration and paperwork requirements for suppressors required by the National Firearms Act (NFA) were unconstitutional took effect at 1:00 a.m. EDT on August 13 after the United States Department of Justice elected to not seek an extension of a stay on his ruling. In a lengthy screed posted on Substack Thursday, Brady United President Kris Brown claimed that the Trump administration was “systematically dismantling the safeguards” that had driven a major reduction in crime, calling suppressors “silencers.”
“Under the court’s order, the gun stores and the organizations involved in the lawsuit can now buy and sell silencers and short-barreled firearms without meeting the requirements of the National Firearms Act (NFA),” Brown bemoaned, while calling supporters of reducing restrictions on suppressors the “Assassin Lobby.” At least one lawmaker also made hysterical claims about the devices.
“Mass murderers use silencers so their targeted victims can’t hear the gun shots, and they can kill more people who don’t flee when the shooting begins,” Democratic Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy claimed in a June 12, 2025, Facebook post. “That’s why we MUST stop the Republican effort to pad the profits of the gun industry by ending background checks on silencers.”
Even though Hiram Percy Maxim invented the first suppressor in 1902 to protect the hearing of shooters and enable people to enjoy target shooting without disturbing others, the National Firearms Act slapped them with a $200 tax stamp requirement that nearly halted civilian sales in 1934, according to Small Arms Review.
While “silencers” is the legal term used under the NFA, these devices do not actually silence firearms, instead, they reduce the noise from a firearm’s muzzle blast—which can exceed 170 decibels—to a level that causes less hearing damage, according to Silencer Shop. Anti-Second Amendment groups previously used the phrase “assault weapons” to paint modern semiautomatic firearms as dangerous. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent to the 2000 Supreme Court decision in Stenberg v. Carhart, noting the term was a euphemism that gun-control advocates used to gain support for banning the firearms.
Brown later claimed in her article that Hendrix invalidated the registration and paperwork requirements on Second Amendment grounds. In a 66-page opinion issued August 5. Hendrix actually ruled that since taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and other items had been reduced to $0 by legislation signed by President Donald Trump in July 2025, the registration and paperwork imposed by the NFA exceeded Congress’ authority under the taxation power.
After the Senate parliamentarian struck language removed those items from the NFA’s purview during the passage of the July 2025 reconciliation bill, Congress reduced the taxes to $0. Gun-rights groups filed suits challenging the law’s applicability shortly after the legislation was signed.
Prior to Hendrix’s decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled on June 18 in Comeaux v. United States that suppressors fall under the category of “arms” and are protected under the Second Amendment. However, the court allowed a conviction for possessing an unregistered suppressor to stand on the grounds that the NFA operated similarly to a “shall issue” concealed carry regime, where officials must grant permits to those who meet the law’s outlined requirements.
(DCNF)