Texas Suppressor Maker Sues DOJ Over Federal Licensing Mandate
Jared Gee and David Abt, owners of 1836 LLC, filed a constitutional suit against the Department of Justice on October 9 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. They want a federal court to declare that Congress cannot require a license from a suppressor company that builds, sells, and keeps every product inside Texas. The target is the Gun Control Act of 1968, not the National Firearms Act. That distinction matters. Most recent suppressor litigation has attacked NFA taxes and registration. This case goes after the licensing layer underneath, and it arrives just as ATF's new guidance is easing NFA paperwork for buyers.
Key Details
The filing names the plaintiffs, the venue, and the legal theory. Here is what the record shows so far:
- Plaintiffs: Jared Gee and David Abt, owners of Texas-based suppressor manufacturer 1836 LLC.
- Defendant: U.S. Department of Justice.
- Filing date and court: October 9, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
- Statute challenged: The Gun Control Act of 1968, which requires federal licensing for manufacturers and dealers.
- Legal theory: The Commerce Clause does not reach a business whose manufacturing, sales, and possession all occur within Texas.
- State law cited: Texas House Bill 957, enacted in 2021 and now codified at Texas Government Code § 2.052, which treats qualifying in-state suppressors as outside federal interstate-commerce regulation.
- Enforcement trigger: In August 2024, ATF agents appeared at the 1836 LLC display at the Texas Trophy Hunters Extravaganza in Fort Worth.
- Seizures: Agents took suppressors, display firearms, inventory, and electronic equipment, then ran further searches at the owners' businesses and homes.
- Status of charges: Gee and Abt faced possible federal criminal charges, but no indictment had been filed when the suit was announced.
- Compliance burden: The owners estimate federal licensing paperwork and recordkeeping could consume up to one-third of their working time.
- Relief sought: A ruling that federal law has no authority over suppressors made, sold, and used in Texas.
Texas Gun Rights, which backs the plaintiffs, announced the case in a news release. The group frames the suit as a second chapter in a federal enforcement fight involving two of its own members.
Background
The Gun Control Act of 1968 built the federal licensing system that still governs firearms manufacturers and dealers. Congress wrote that law after the 1968 federal crime bill and the assassinations of that era, and it relies on the Commerce Clause as its constitutional anchor. The National Firearms Act of 1934 came first. It taxed and registered machine guns, short-barreled rifles, and suppressors. For decades the suppressor tax stayed at $200 per item. Recent federal legislation reduced that tax to zero, effective January 1, 2026, which is why the NFA side of suppressor law has shifted so fast.
The Commerce Clause has been the central fight over federal gun laws for thirty years. In United States v. Lopez (1995), the Supreme Court struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act, holding that possessing a gun near a school did not substantially affect interstate commerce. United States v. Morrison (2000) narrowed the power further. Gonzales v. Raich (2005) pulled the other way, allowing Congress to regulate purely local activity when it fits within a broader national market. Texas's HB 957 tries to take advantage of the Lopez and Morrison line. Federal authorities have said federal firearms laws still apply regardless of the state statute.
Why It Matters for Gun Owners
Texas suppressor makers are the first group directly affected. If you buy from a Texas maker, check whether that company holds a federal manufacturer license. Ask for the FFL number and verify it through ATF's license lookup before you hand over money. Unlicensed production is the exposure that Gee and Abt now face. A maker who ships out of state, buys parts across state lines, or sells through a dealer falls well outside the plaintiffs' theory, and the case will not help them.
Trade shows carry real risk too. The 2024 Fort Worth raid happened at a public exhibition, not in a shop. Anyone who sells or displays regulated items at events should review license status, inventory records, and display rules with counsel before the next show. Texas gun owners should also keep purchase records for every suppressor they own, regardless of where it was made. The case will take months to resolve, and the government's position has not changed.
DownRange Analysis
This suit will not be decided under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Bruen governs Second Amendment history and tradition, and this case rests on the Commerce Clause. That shift makes the plaintiffs' job harder in one way and cleaner in another. Their argument runs through Lopez and Morrison, but Raich gives Congress wide room to aggregate local activity. Suppressor components, steel, and baffle materials often cross state lines. Expect DOJ to point to that supply chain. The Supremacy Clause also makes the Texas statute a weak shield on its own. A state cannot exempt its residents from a valid federal statute. The court will need to decide whether the federal licensing requirement is valid as applied to a purely intrastate maker. That is a narrow question, and a narrow ruling is the most likely outcome.
If you own a suppressor, keep your paperwork in order, avoid unlicensed manufacturing, and buy from licensed sellers. Watch the Northern District of Texas docket for the first motion to dismiss. That filing will tell you how seriously DOJ views the claim.
