Is the DOJ Pulling a “Windsor” with the NFA?

AmmoLand ^ | December 3, 2025 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Could the Trump Department of Justice (DOJ) protection of the National Firearms Act (NFA) in Silencer Shop v BATF be a tactical move to bring the case to the Supreme Court?

The Supreme Court case United States v Windsor upended centuries of precedent and jurisprudence in the United States by finding a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional. The Obama administration played a key part in this policy shift by claiming the act was constitutional, thus protecting “standing” in the case. Later, the Obama DOJ switched sides and agreed with Windsor that the Defense of Marriage Act was not constitutional. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Windsor in a 5-4 decision.

According to Mark Smith, prominent Second Amendment advocate and member of the Supreme Court Bar, and frequent writer at AmmoLand, the tactic of the federal government arguing for one side of a case until the case reaches the Supreme Court, then switching sides, has come to be known as “pulling a Windsor”. The DOJ defense of the NFA in the Fifth Circuit is very unpopular with Second Amendment supporters. From John Crump at AmmoLand:

Trump’s DOJ is hailed as the “most pro-gun DOJ ever,” but its response to the GOA lawsuit paints a different picture. The Justice Department took a more adversarial stance in the lawsuit, ignoring pleas from members of Congress such as Andrew Clyde. The DOJ is vigorously defending the NFA.

The DOJ claims that the NFA is still a tax, despite no revenue being collected. They say that, because it is still a tax in their view, the law is constitutional because the power is given to them through the Interstate Commerce Act.

---

TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist; doj; nfa; windsor

[marktwain]

The Obama administration supported a lawsuit showing the Defense of Marraige Act was Constitutional, until it did not. The tactic got the case (Windsor) to the Supreme Court. Could the NSA be using this tactic on the National Firearms Act?

[DesertRhino]

Doubtful. Blondie does not have a spectacular 2A record. She went hard after George Zimmerman. I will be pleasantly surprised if this is 3D chess and her defending the NFA is a tactic that she’s going to flip the script when it hits the supreme court.

And it’s a poor tactic anyway. If the Supremes do not take up the case, the lower court ruling stands.

[redfreedom]

I wonder if silencers would be a simple OTC purchase if all the BS paperwork and “tax” were removed from the purchase? I can’t see paying more than one or two hundred bucks for a suppressor.

I checked out prices on the first Google search site listed and an AR15 suppressor can be over $1,000. That’s ridiculous, I never paid that much for the rifle and all the goodies attached to it.

[SauronOfMordor]

If the BS were removed, lots of people would make their own.

[coloradan]

I have read that there are countries in Europe where, despite relatively restrictive gun laws generally, not using a suppressor is considered rude, so getting them and getting one attached to one’s hunting rifle, is quick, cheap, and easy.

[marktwain]

Multiple countries had no regulation of silencers/suppressors for decades, with many advantages and no ill effects.

Until 2019, in New Zealand, a 12 year old could go into a hardware store, pay $50 for a silencer, and walk out with it, no questions asked.

[fso301]

I wonder if silencers would be a simple OTC purchase if all the BS paperwork and “tax” were removed from the purchase?

So simple to produce that most current silencer manufacturers would not be able to remain in business if all restrictions were removed... and you can't overlook that fact when considering who may be lurking behind the curtains of this case.

[marktwain]

So simple to produce that most current silencer manufacturers would not be able to remain in business if all restrictions were removed...

---

I interviewed Brandon Maddox about this issue. Brandon created Silencer Central, which sells about half the silencers in the USA.

His response was he was all for removing silencers from the NFA. The demand would be so great, his sales and profits would skyrocket.

From the interview:

“Weingarten: Did you have a position on the Hearing Protection Act (HPA)?

Brandon Maddox: We would love for that to pass. It would open it up where we would be able to sell more suppressors.

We are both a dealer and we also are manufacturers. We have a line of products that are some of the best-selling in the nation. People may not realize this, because people do not have access to them because we sell direct. We could sell a whole lot more if they became non-NFA items.”

---

Brandon Maddox believed the demand would be so great, it would take a while to meet it. In the meantime, established manufacturers would be producing non-stop for years.

Sure, you can make a cheap .22 silencer very easily. Making silencers which work with high powered rifles, shotguns, and semiautomatic high powered pistols is a bit more complicated and takes some expertise.

As with most things, there will be a sorting out by price and quality.

[whitney69]

It’s come to the point it seems like every case is never decided until the SCOTUS says so. And if started low in the system, these decisions will never get to them as someone will force it back or run out of money to go higher. Maybe there shouldn’t be a court system of levels and just have one. Place a supreme court at that level in every state and they will be the deciding factors. It sure would speed up the end result and stop our court system of being used as a weapon rather than a justice department. KISS!

wy69

[nagant]

Hey, I wasn’t going to bring it up.