Can You Make a Suppressor, SBR, or SBS Without a Form 1 After the 2026 NFA Ruling?

The August 2026 federal court ruling involving the National Firearms Act has generated an enormous amount of discussion about buying suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) without traditional NFA registration.

But there is another question receiving just as much attention:

What about making one yourself?

Does the court ruling only affect people purchasing NFA items from businesses involved in the lawsuit? Do you have to be a customer? Do you have to belong to one of the plaintiff organizations? And what happened to the traditional ATF Form 1 process used to make an SBR, SBS, or suppressor?

The answer requires an important distinction between what the court held unconstitutional and who is currently protected by the court's injunction.

As of August 18, 2026, the court's injunction addresses both transfers and making, but the injunction is not a universal nationwide injunction protecting every person in the United States.

Let's break down what that means.

Important Legal Disclaimer: This article is for general educational and informational purposes only and is not legal advice. The litigation discussed below is extremely recent and remains subject to appeal, additional court orders, ATF guidance, and state or local law. Anyone considering making, acquiring, transferring, possessing, or transporting a suppressor, SBR, SBS, or other regulated firearm should verify the current law applicable to their specific circumstances.

First: What Changed With the NFA in 2026?

For decades, the National Firearms Act imposed a federal tax and registration system on certain firearms and devices.

That included:

• Suppressors
• Short-barreled rifles
• Short-barreled shotguns
• Any Other Weapons
• Machine guns
• Destructive devices

Traditionally, someone making an NFA-regulated firearm generally had to submit an ATF Form 1, while many transfers involved an ATF Form 4.

Congress then reduced the federal making and transfer taxes on suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs to $0, effective January 1, 2026.

Machine guns and destructive devices were treated differently and retained their taxes.

That $0 tax created the constitutional issue at the center of Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and the consolidated Jensen v. ATF litigation.

Why Did Eliminating the Tax Matter?

The National Firearms Act was enacted using Congress's constitutional taxing authority.

Historically, the federal government argued that registration, applications, approvals, and recordkeeping helped administer and collect the NFA tax.

Once Congress reduced the tax on suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs to zero, the plaintiffs challenged whether those registration requirements could still constitutionally exist under Congress's taxing power.

On August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix agreed with the plaintiffs on that central issue.

The court held that the challenged registration and approval requirements exceeded Congress's constitutional authority once the relevant tax no longer generated revenue.

That included provisions dealing with making, not merely buying or transferring.

The Important Difference Between Form 1 and Form 4

This distinction is especially important.

Form 4

ATF Form 4 has traditionally been associated with transferring an NFA firearm to another person or entity.

For example, someone purchasing a suppressor from a dealer traditionally went through the Form 4 process.

Form 1

ATF Form 1 is different.

Form 1 is traditionally the application used when an individual or legal entity intends to make an NFA firearm.

Examples can include legally configuring a firearm as an SBR or SBS, or other lawful making activity involving an NFA-regulated item.

The August court injunction did not address only Form 4 transfers.

It also reached the federal making application and registration requirements that form the foundation of the Form 1 process for the covered firearms.

Does the Court Ruling Cover Making an SBR, SBS, or Suppressor?

Yes—the challenged making requirements are part of the injunction.

One of the statutes specifically addressed is 26 U.S.C. § 5822.

That is the federal NFA provision governing the making of firearms.

The injunction also reaches regulations associated with the application process for making covered NFA firearms.

This is important because much of the initial attention surrounding the lawsuit focused on suppressor purchases and Form 4 transfers.

The decision is broader than simply:

"Certain customers don't need a Form 4."

The ruling also directly addresses the NFA's application and registration requirements associated with making suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs.

Does That Mean Anyone Can Make One Without a Form 1?

This is where the distinction becomes extremely important.

Not based on the current court order.

The court held the challenged provisions unconstitutional, but it declined to issue what lawyers call a universal injunction.

That means the court did not order ATF and DOJ to stop enforcing these provisions against every person in America.

Instead, the injunction protects the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their:

• Members
• Customers
• Agencies
• Political subdivisions

including current and future members or customers where the judgment applies.

So there are really two different questions:

Question 1: Did the court rule against the NFA's making requirements?

Yes.

Question 2: Did the court issue an injunction protecting every American from those requirements?

No.

Understanding that distinction clears up much of the confusion surrounding Form 1s right now.

Why Are People Saying the Making Ruling Applies to Everyone?

Part of the confusion comes from the difference between a court declaring a legal requirement unconstitutional and the scope of the remedy the court actually issues.

Judge Hendrix ruled against the challenged NFA requirements.

But when deciding who would receive protection from federal enforcement, the court limited its injunction rather than extending it universally to everyone in the United States.

This distinction has become especially important following recent Supreme Court precedent limiting universal injunctions.

So when someone says:

"The court struck down the Form 1 requirement."

There is an important basis for that statement.

But when someone says:

"That means every American can now make an SBR or suppressor without a Form 1."

That goes further than the current injunction.

Who Is Currently Covered?

The injunction applies to the plaintiffs and certain associated people and entities.

This includes, where applicable, current and future members and customers associated with plaintiff organizations and businesses.

Plaintiffs in the litigation include organizations and businesses such as:

• Gun Owners of America
• Gun Owners Foundation
• Silencer Shop Foundation
• Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition
• Palmetto State Armory
• SilencerCo Weapons Research
• B&T USA
• Texas State Rifle Association
• Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
• FPC Action Foundation
• Hot Shots Custom

There are also individual plaintiffs and several state plaintiffs.

The exact scope is important, and being a resident of a plaintiff state does not necessarily mean every resident automatically receives the same protection.

For a more detailed explanation of membership, customers, businesses, and other covered parties, read our guide to who the 2026 NFA court injunction actually covers.

Making vs. Buying: Why This Matters

This is probably the most useful way to understand the current situation.

Imagine someone wants an SBR.

There are traditionally two very different paths.

Buying an Existing SBR

A person purchases an already-manufactured SBR from a licensed dealer.

That is a transfer.

Historically, NFA approval and registration were handled through Form 4.

The August injunction blocks certain NFA Form 4-related requirements for covered parties.

However, SBR and SBS dealer transfers have an additional complication: 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4).

That is part of the Gun Control Act rather than the NFA provisions struck by the court.

Because § 922(b)(4) was not enjoined, dealer transfers of SBRs and SBSs remain legally complicated while federal agencies, dealers, and attorneys determine how the statutes interact.

What If You Make an SBR Instead?

Now consider a different situation.

Instead of buying an already-manufactured SBR, someone already possesses an otherwise lawful firearm and wants to configure it in a manner that meets the federal definition of an SBR.

Historically, this situation generally involved the Form 1 making process.

The August injunction specifically reaches the NFA's making application requirement under § 5822.

According to the NRA's August 17 legal update, it should be possible for an individual covered by the injunction to lawfully make a covered firearm without following the traditional NFA application and registration process.

That makes the making issue legally different from buying an already-manufactured SBR from an FFL.

However, the person still has to be covered by the injunction, and other federal, state, and local requirements remain relevant.

What About Making an SBS?

The same NFA making issue applies to a short-barreled shotgun.

The challenged Form 1-related making requirements are included in the injunction for covered parties.

But SBSs can be heavily restricted under state law.

A person who is protected from enforcement of a particular federal NFA provision is not automatically protected from an independent state prohibition.

This is why the federal ruling should never be interpreted as:

"Anything goes nationwide."

Federal NFA registration is only one part of the legal picture.

What About Making a Suppressor?

Suppressors are also among the firearms covered by the court's ruling.

The NFA making application requirement addressed by § 5822 is included in the injunction for covered parties.

However, making a suppressor raises an additional issue that deserves special attention:

Federal marking requirements.

The August 17 NRA legal analysis specifically warns that 26 U.S.C. § 5842(a) remains relevant and requires individuals to comply with applicable NFA marking requirements.

Certain additional marking provisions received different treatment for the Jensen plaintiffs.

That means:

"No traditional Form 1 requirement" does not automatically mean "no other federal requirements."

Anyone considering personally making a suppressor should therefore be especially careful to understand the marking rules, the exact scope of the injunction, and applicable state law before acting.

Does the Ruling Eliminate Serial Number Requirements?

Not universally.

This is another important distinction that has been lost in some online discussions.

The injunction addresses numerous registration and approval requirements, but the court treated certain marking requirements differently.

According to the August 17 NRA analysis, 26 U.S.C. § 5842(a) remains applicable.

Additional marking provisions—§ 5842(b) and the related § 5861(i)—were enjoined specifically with respect to the Jensen parties.

Therefore, people should not interpret the decision as blanket permission to make an unmarked or unserialized suppressor or other covered firearm.

Are Machine Guns Included?

No.

Machine guns are not covered by this ruling in the same manner as suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs.

Congress did not reduce the NFA making and transfer tax for machine guns to $0.

Destructive devices similarly remain outside this particular relief.

The court's reasoning was tied directly to the disappearance of the federal tax on the affected firearm categories.

Therefore, this ruling should never be described as:

"The entire NFA has been eliminated."

It has not.

What About AOWs?

Certain firearms classified as Any Other Weapons (AOWs) were also affected by the elimination of the NFA tax.

However, the court's injunction treats AOW relief differently between the two sets of plaintiffs.

The AOW portion applies to the Silencer Shop Foundation parties, not identically to every plaintiff in the consolidated litigation.

That makes AOW questions particularly dependent on the exact circumstances.

State Laws Can Still Stop You

This may be the most important warning in the entire article.

The federal injunction does not automatically override independent state firearm laws.

A state may:

• Prohibit suppressors
• Prohibit SBRs
• Prohibit SBSs
• Require federal NFA compliance
• Have its own registration requirements
• Restrict certain firearm configurations
• Impose separate manufacturing or possession requirements

That means someone could potentially be protected by the federal injunction while still being prohibited from possessing the firearm under state law.

The current legal situation therefore requires two separate questions:

Is this lawful under federal law for this person?

and

Is this lawful under state and local law?

Both matter.

Gorilla Machining's current shipping restrictions can also help customers identify states where additional restrictions may affect firearm or suppressor-related purchases.

What About Suppressor-Ready AR Builds?

The court decision is particularly relevant to the growing number of shooters researching short-barreled and suppressor-ready platforms.

For example, .300 Blackout has become popular because it performs efficiently from shorter barrels and works particularly well in suppressed configurations.

But owning a suppressor-ready upper and legally possessing a suppressor or configuring an SBR are separate legal questions.

Our guide to 300 Blackout suppressor-ready uppers explains the platform and its suppressor-oriented features in greater detail.

The important legal point is that hardware compatibility does not determine whether a particular firearm configuration is lawful.

Why SBR/SBS Dealer Transfers Are More Complicated Than Making

This is one of the most interesting consequences of the ruling.

For covered individuals, the NFA making requirements may now present a more straightforward legal question than purchasing an already-manufactured SBR or SBS from a licensed dealer.

Why?

Because dealer sales of SBRs and SBSs are also affected by 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4).

That federal law restricts licensed dealers from selling or delivering SBRs and SBSs except under authorization from the Attorney General.

Historically, NFA approval served that function.

The Texas court did not enjoin § 922(b)(4).

Therefore, even though certain Form 4 NFA requirements are enjoined, dealers still have to determine how to satisfy this separate federal statute.

The same complication does not necessarily arise in exactly the same way when an individual makes a firearm for themselves.

Does the Background Check Requirement Disappear?

No.

The court ruling addresses specific NFA registration and approval requirements.

It does not eliminate ordinary background-check requirements that may apply when someone purchases a firearm from an FFL.

Suppressor transfers occurring under the injunction have still involved federal firearm-transfer procedures where applicable.

So:

No NFA registration does not automatically mean no background check.

Is the Form 1 Gone Forever?

That is not something anyone can responsibly say yet.

ATF continues to have a Form 1 process, and people who are not covered by the injunction may still need to use it.

Additionally, some individuals may choose or need to continue using NFA registration procedures because of state-law requirements.

ATF has not simply deleted the NFA system.

The federal government also still has time to appeal the Texas decision.

An appellate court could:

• Uphold the decision
• Modify it
• Stay it
• Reverse it
• Change the scope of the injunction

That is why this situation needs to be monitored closely.

Could This Eventually Apply to Everyone?

Potentially—but that has not happened yet.

The district court's constitutional reasoning attacks the foundation of the challenged registration requirements themselves.

But the court deliberately limited the injunction rather than extending relief universally.

Future developments could potentially create broader relief.

That could happen through:

• An appellate court decision
• A Supreme Court ruling
• Additional federal litigation
• Congressional action
• ATF or DOJ policy changes

Until then, there is an important difference between saying:

"The court ruled the requirements unconstitutional."

and

"Every American is currently protected from enforcement."

The first reflects the court's constitutional holding.

The second does not accurately describe the current scope of the injunction.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can everyone make an SBR without a Form 1 now?

No. The court's injunction reaches the NFA making requirements, but the injunction itself does not universally protect every person in the United States.

Individuals covered by the injunction may be able to make a covered firearm without following the traditional NFA application and registration process, subject to other federal, state, and local laws.

Does the ruling apply to Form 1 as well as Form 4?

Yes.

The injunction specifically includes 26 U.S.C. § 5822, which governs the making application process, as well as provisions associated with transfers and registration.

Can a covered person make an SBR without Form 1 registration?

According to the NRA's August 17 analysis, it should be possible for an individual protected by the injunction to lawfully make a covered firearm without following the traditional NFA process.

Other federal laws and state requirements can still apply.

Can a covered person make a suppressor?

The making provisions are included in the injunction, but suppressor making raises additional federal marking requirements.

Do not assume the ruling eliminated serial-number or identification requirements.

Is making an SBR different from buying an SBR?

Potentially, yes.

Dealer transfers of SBRs and SBSs remain affected by separate federal law, including 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4).

That provision was not enjoined by the Texas court.

Can I make an SBS?

The NFA making provisions are covered for protected individuals, but SBS possession is separately restricted in some states.

State law must be checked before relying on the federal injunction.

Do state laws still apply?

Absolutely.

The federal injunction does not erase state or local firearm laws.

Are machine guns included?

No.

Machine guns and destructive devices did not receive the same $0 tax treatment and are not covered by this ruling in the same way.

Could the ruling change?

Yes.

As of August 18, 2026, the injunction is in effect, but DOJ still has time to appeal. A future court order could change the current situation.

What Gun Owners Should Understand Right Now

The biggest misconception surrounding the August 2026 NFA decision is that it is only about buying suppressors without a Form 4.

It isn't.

The court also enjoined important provisions governing the making of suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns.

For people protected by the injunction, that may affect the traditional Form 1 application and registration process.

But the second misconception is just as important:

The injunction does not currently protect every American.

The court specifically refused to issue universal relief.

That means gun owners must distinguish between:

• The court's constitutional ruling
• The scope of the injunction
• Whether a particular person is covered
• Whether another federal statute applies
• Federal marking requirements
• State and local law

Those details matter tremendously.

Conclusion

The August 2026 NFA ruling is about much more than suppressor purchases.

The federal court specifically addressed the NFA provisions governing making, transferring, registering, and possessing certain untaxed firearms.

That means the traditional Form 1 process is part of the legal changes created by the injunction.

For an individual covered by the injunction, current legal analysis indicates that making a suppressor, SBR, or SBS may no longer require following the traditional NFA application and registration process, although other federal requirements—including marking rules—and state laws can still apply.

But the injunction is not universal.

People who are not protected by the judgment should not assume that the court's decision automatically exempts them from Form 1 requirements.

This is an unusually fast-moving legal situation. DOJ can still appeal, ATF procedures are still developing, and additional court decisions could significantly expand—or restrict—the practical effect of the ruling.

For now, the most accurate takeaway is:

The court's ruling reaches NFA making requirements, not just purchases and transfers—but who can rely on that ruling still matters.