Dave Marshak, the Jefferson County sheriff, said he joined a lawsuit to eliminate federal registration requirements for short-barreled rifles and suppressors, also called silencers, to protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
On Sept. 8, Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway and Marshak filed the lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
Marshak said he is participating in the lawsuit as a state resident and not as the sheriff. He said Jefferson County will not pay any money to help finance the suit or cover his legal expenses.
The lawsuit alleges federal restrictions are unconstitutional when applied to short-barreled rifles and suppressors because those items are protected under the Second Amendment, and Congress’ decision to zero out taxes on the purchase of certain short-barreled firearms, suppressors and other weapons invalidated the ATF’s authority to require registration of a gun or firearm accessory’s owner.
“I believe strongly in both the rule of law and the Second Amendment,” Marshak said. “I have spent my career enforcing laws and holding people accountable when they commit crimes, particularly violent crimes. At the same time, government must operate within the limits imposed on it by the Constitution.
“I don’t believe we should treat millions of law-abiding gun owners as though they are potential criminals because of what someone else might do.”
The lawsuit says the federal government’s restrictions through the National Firearms Act are unconstitutional. The NFA, enacted in 1934, has historically required owners of suppressors, short‑barreled rifles and other weapons to register them with the federal government and receive approval before a transfer.
According to the lawsuit, the registration requirements force people to share personal information “akin to that obtained from an individual being arrested and charged with a crime.”
The suit also said completing ATF forms online may take the better part of an hour, and those seeking permission to own short-barreled rifles and suppressors incur costs related to providing fingerprint information and a photograph with each application.
Hanaway argues that people who want to avoid arrest, prosecution and imprisonment for a felony violation of federal law are left with two choices: comply with onerous regulations or forgo possession of short-barreled rifles and suppressors. The lawsuit said those who do not have proper registration could face up to 10 years in prison and a fine of up to $250,000.
“The ATF’s heavy-handed restrictions on suppressors threaten lawful firearm use and undermine the rights protected by the Second Amendment,” Hanaway said in a statement announcing the lawsuit.
Marshak said he does not believe removing the requirements to own short-barreled rifles and suppressors would hinder law enforcement officers’ abilities to track illegally used firearms and solve crimes.
“The lawsuit does not seek to legalize criminal possession of firearms or prevent law enforcement from prosecuting someone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime,” he said. “Commercial firearm purchases would also remain subject to applicable federal laws, including background-check requirements.
“From a law-enforcement perspective, my concern is criminal behavior,” he said. “If someone illegally possesses a firearm or uses a firearm to rob, assault or kill someone, we should aggressively investigate that crime, arrest the offender and hold that person accountable.”
Marshak also said he does not believe removing the restrictions to own short-barreled rifles and suppressors would increase gun violence.
The Sheriff’s Office has investigated nine homicides related to shootings so far this year with eight of the deaths occurring between July and September.
“No one needs to convince me of the consequences of gun violence,” he said. “But people who commit murders and violent assaults are fundamentally different from law-abiding citizens purchasing and possessing firearms legally. We should focus our resources on the people committing violent crimes and hold them accountable.
“Constitutional rights are not dependent upon whether criminals abuse them. The First, Fourth and Fifth amendments can sometimes make the work of law enforcement more difficult, but I would never suggest eliminating those protections simply because doing so might make our jobs easier. The Second Amendment deserves the same respect.”
The lawsuit said the government lost its power to require registry when the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in 2025 reduced the $200 federal tax to zero on all NFA firearms, except machine guns and grenade launchers.
Hanaway argues the government’s authority to compel firearm registration extended from its tax collection powers, and with no taxes to collect, the government lacks the basis for maintaining an inventory of gun ownership.
The lawsuit also said suppressors are in common use and are one of the most effective hearing protection tools. The lawsuit said the Law Enforcement Management Institute of Texas concluded, “to help prevent permanent hearing loss to law enforcement officers, agencies should utilize firearm sound suppressors.”
The lawsuit said suppressors also reduce noise pollution, make firearm training safer and improve accuracy by reducing recoil and are almost never used for criminal purposes.
“Suppressors have several legitimate purposes,” Marshak said. “They reduce the sound and muzzle blast associated with firing a weapon and can help protect hearing during shooting and firearms training. Law enforcement and the military use suppressors for some of the same reasons.
“Despite how they are portrayed in movies, suppressors do not make firearms silent. They reduce the sound of a gunshot. They do not eliminate it.”
The lawsuit said short-barreled rifles are not more dangerous than other protected firearms, and that means the Constitution guarantees the right to possess and use them.
Like other constitutional rights, the Second Amendment is limited, Marshak said, and the Supreme Court has recognized that some firearm regulations can be constitutional.
“Nothing about this lawsuit suggests otherwise,” he said. “The question isn’t whether any firearm regulation can ever be constitutional. The question is whether this particular federal regulation is constitutional.
“I believe government should aggressively enforce constitutional laws against violent criminals and people who illegally use firearms. I also believe law-abiding citizens are entitled to the full protection of the Second Amendment. Those positions are entirely consistent. The rule of law applies to citizens, but it also applies to government.”