President Donald Trump personally directed the Justice Department not to appeal a federal court ruling that loosened restrictions on short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and silencers, according to CBS News, citing sources familiar with the decision.
The weapons have been regulated for more than 90 years under the National Firearms Act, a law enacted during the 1930s in an era when Congress was responding to organized crime and highly publicized gun violence. Because of that history, CBS referred to the regulated category as “gangster weapons.”
The current legal fight is more technical than the nickname suggests. A federal judge in Texas ruled in August that certain registration requirements could no longer be enforced after Congress reduced the federal tax on the affected weapons to zero. The tax had long been central to the legal structure of the National Firearms Act.
The Justice Department allowed that ruling to take effect rather than seeking an immediate stay. CBS then reported Thursday that Trump personally instructed the department not to appeal the ruling.
If that directive remains in place, the federal government will not ask a higher court to restore the restrictions struck down by the judge. CBS reported that other parties, such as states or local governments, could potentially seek permission to intervene, and Congress could also change the law again.
The affected firearms include short-barreled rifles and shotguns as well as silencers, which federal law often refers to as suppressors. These items have traditionally been subject to tighter federal oversight than ordinary rifles, shotguns and handguns.
Supporters of gun rights have argued for years that the National Firearms Act imposes outdated burdens on law-abiding owners. They contend that suppressors have legitimate uses, including reducing noise, and that short-barreled firearms should not require a separate federal registration process.
Gun-control groups take the opposite view. They argue that the weapons were regulated more heavily because they can be easier to conceal or can reduce the sound signature of gunfire, and they say federal registration provides an additional layer of oversight.
The Trump administration’s decision is therefore both a legal move and a policy choice. Rather than defending the existing regulatory system through an appeal, the Justice Department is allowing a ruling that weakens part of that system to remain in effect.
CBS’s latest report adds another element: the decision was not simply made by career lawyers or Justice Department leadership acting on their own. According to the outlet’s sources, Trump personally ordered the department not to pursue the appeal.
That detail matters because presidents routinely influence major legal positions taken by their administrations, but the degree of direct presidential involvement is not always public. In this case, the reported intervention places Trump himself at the center of a long-running dispute over how tightly these weapons should be regulated.
The administration has broadly aligned itself with gun-rights advocates on federal firearms policy. Trump has repeatedly said his administration is protecting Second Amendment rights, and his government has rolled back or challenged a number of restrictions supported by the Biden administration.
The legal dispute over the National Firearms Act is unlikely to end with one Texas ruling. Congress can legislate, other courts can confront related questions, and other parties may try to appeal. But for now, the federal government itself is choosing not to ask an appellate court to reverse the decision.
When a major federal gun law is weakened by a court ruling, should the executive branch defend the existing law through appeal or treat the ruling as an opportunity to change policy?
