Missouri Just Sued the ATF. Here's Why It Matters for Every Gun Owner in the State.

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway filed a federal lawsuit against the ATF on September 8, 2026, asking a court to strike down NFA registration requirements for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs. This is the biggest Missouri-specific 2A legal story of the year — and it happened right here in our backyard.

On September 8, 2026, Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway filed a 34-page federal complaint against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Department of Justice in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri — Case No. 4:26-cv-01430. The case is officially titled Marshak v. ATF.

The complaint was filed by the State of Missouri, appearing ex rel. its Attorney General, meaning Missouri itself is the plaintiff — alongside individual co-plaintiff Dave Marshak, a law-abiding resident of Festus, Missouri.

The defendants named: ATF, the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche, and ATF Director Robert Cekada — all in their official capacities.

General Hanaway's statement said it plainly: "Law and order and the Second Amendment go hand in hand. A government that respects the Constitution has empowered, law-abiding citizens who can protect themselves and their families. It does not paper over rights with red tape. The ATF's heavy-handed restrictions on suppressors threaten lawful firearm use and undermine the rights protected by the Second Amendment."

Jefferson County Sheriff Dave Marshak — the individual co-plaintiff — backed the filing directly: criminal penalties can still enforce firearm rules even without a federal registry. The two arguments don't conflict. You can have enforcement without a registration scheme.

What the Lawsuit Argues — The Two-Part Case

Missouri's complaint rests on two independent constitutional arguments — either one of which, standing alone, is sufficient to strike down the NFA's registration requirements for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs.

Argument 1 — The Tax Power Foundation Has Collapsed

The National Firearms Act of 1934 was passed as a tax measure. When the Supreme Court upheld it in Sonzinsky v. United States in 1937, the justices explicitly said the NFA was valid as an exercise of Congress's taxing power — not as a general police power regulation.

On January 1, 2026, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act zeroed out the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs. The tax went from $200 to $0.

Missouri's argument follows directly from that: a registry built on a tax that no longer exists has no constitutional foundation. Sonzinsky upheld the NFA as a revenue measure. With no revenue being collected, the Sonzinsky rationale evaporates. The registration scheme cannot stand.

The ATF's own numbers support this conclusion — and Missouri uses them. ATF's May 2026 regulatory impact filing projected zero-tax NFA applications would range between 635,836 and 1.14 million in the first year alone. In 2025, ATF disapproved 691 applications for occupational tax issues out of more than 2 million total transfers — 0.03%. The registry wasn't collecting meaningful revenue. It wasn't serving a tax collection function. It was serving as a registry — and registries are not what the taxing power authorizes.

Argument 2 — Suppressors and SBRs Are Constitutionally Protected Arms

Missouri's second argument is grounded in the Second Amendment directly.

The complaint argues that suppressors and short-barreled rifles are "arms" in common use for lawful purposes — training, hunting, and self-defense. Under the framework established in Heller and reinforced in Bruen, the Second Amendment protects arms that are in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The government cannot require registration of constitutionally protected arms without a historical tradition to support it.

Missouri's argument: there is no historical tradition — going back to the founding era — of requiring Americans to register protected arms with the federal government before being permitted to own them. The registration requirement fails the Bruen text-and-history test.

ATF's own statistics are turned against the agency here too. Roughly 87.5% of suppressor applications and 88% of SBR applications in recent years came from manufacturers who already pay the federal occupational tax — not from individual buyers trying to evade taxation. The registry isn't catching tax evaders. It's burdening law-abiding citizens who have no intention of evading anything.

Why This Case Is Different From Jensen

The Jensen ruling — Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF — was decided in the Northern District of Texas. It covers the plaintiffs and their members and customers. It is a party-limited injunction.

Missouri's case — filed in the Eastern District of Missouri — is different in a critical way. Missouri is suing as a state, on behalf of its residents. If Missouri prevails, the relief would apply to Missouri residents broadly — not just members of specific organizations or customers of specific businesses.

This is the case that could give every Missourian — regardless of GOA membership or Silencer Shop account status — direct legal protection from NFA registration enforcement for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs.

It is also filed in the Eastern District of Missouri — the same court where Brown v. ATF has been pending before Chief Judge Stephen R. Clark since early 2026. The legal groundwork laid in Brown v. ATF may benefit Missouri's new filing. Watch for Judge assignments and any early procedural rulings.

Who Is Dave Marshak?

Dave Marshak is a law-abiding resident of Festus, Missouri — Jefferson County — who joined the lawsuit as an individual co-plaintiff alongside the State of Missouri. Jefferson County Sheriff Dave Marshak publicly backed the filing.

The inclusion of an individual Missouri resident as co-plaintiff alongside the state strengthens the standing argument — the complaint demonstrates real harm to a real Missouri gun owner, not just abstract state interest.

The Broader NFA Legal Landscape Right Now

Missouri's filing joins a growing coalition of legal challenges:

Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF — Northern District of Texas — Jensen ruling — injunction in effect for covered parties
Brown v. ATF — Eastern District of Missouri — pending before Chief Judge Clark — no oral argument date yet
Roberts v. ATF — Eastern District of Kentucky — fully briefed, awaiting ruling
State of Missouri ex rel. Hanaway v. ATF — Eastern District of Missouri — NEW — filed September 8, 2026
21 AGs letter to Congress — urging full NFA repeal — September 4, 2026
DOJ appeal deadline — October 5, 2026 — 25 days away

The NFA is under simultaneous attack from every direction — individual plaintiffs, gun rights organizations, commercial businesses, state attorneys general, and Congress. The legal momentum is unmistakable.

What This Means for M&M and Missouri Gun Owners

Right now — today — Missouri gun owners who are members of GOA, NRA, SAF, FPC, or CCRKBA, or who purchase through Silencer Shop's dealer network, are covered under the Jensen injunction. Suppressor transfers for covered parties process on a 4473 with a standard NICS background check.

Missouri's new lawsuit could expand that protection to all Missouri residents — regardless of organization membership — if AG Hanaway prevails. That would be the most significant expansion of NFA relief in Missouri history.

In the meantime:

GOA corporate membership at gunowners.org covers M&M as a business entity under Jensen
Silencer Shop network transfers are the cleanest, most documented path to no-Form-4 suppressor purchases for covered customers
The October 5 DOJ appeal deadline is 25 days away — if DOJ doesn't appeal Jensen, the injunction becomes significantly harder to challenge
Missouri's new lawsuit gives every Missouri gun owner a reason to follow this case closely

At M&M Guns and Supplies, we are monitoring every development in real time. We'll update this blog the moment anything changes.

Stay current on the NFA legal fight and all things 2A at mmguns.com/blog/downrange. Stop in and see us at 5578 Salt River Road, Saint Peters, MO 63376 | 636-387-1199

All purchases subject to applicable federal, state, and local laws. This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Missouri is a constitutional carry state; however, individual municipalities and political subdivisions retain the right to require a valid CCW permit to carry within their jurisdiction. Know your local laws before you carry.