Published August 5, 2026 at 5:47 PM ET · Updated August 7, 2026 at 2:06 AM ET
Judge rules the updated National Firearms Act violates the Constitution
2 independent outlets are covering this story, first reported here by Washington Times. Verification: Corroborated (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.
A judge ruled that the updated National Firearms Act violates the Constitution. The ruling determined the act no longer applies to silencers.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 1 d ago, when Washington Times reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets. The most recent report came 4 hr ago from ZeroHedge.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Under Bruen, when the Second Amendment's text covers conduct that conduct is presumptively protected and the government must justify its regulation with a historical tradition of similar rules. Caetano confirmed the right reaches arms not in existence at the founding. Whether silencers qualify as bearable arms and what tradition, if any, supports regulating them is not settled by these slices.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin P. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Thomas
New York's requirement that applicants demonstrate 'proper cause' — a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community — to obtain an unrestricted public-carry license violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public. The Court held the Second Amendment protects a right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense, and rejected the two-step means-end framework lower courts had applied after Heller.
Jaime Caetano v. Massachusetts 577 U.S. 411 (2016)
Vote: Unanimous per curiam (8-member Court, post-Scalia); no recorded vote split · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)
Summarily vacating the SJC's judgment without briefing on the merits or oral argument, the Court held that each of the SJC's three rationales contradicted Heller: the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all bearable arms, including those not in existence at the founding; 'unusual' cannot be equated with 'not in common use in 1789'; and protection is not limited to weapons useful in warfare. The case was remanded for further proceedings; the Court did not itself hold the Massachusetts ban unconstitutional.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
