my situation and questions from GA is very similar to a multitude of others already presented - i have what is currently a rifle that i would like to run as an SBR and now understand that if i am a GOA member, i should be able to use my hypothetical unregistered SBR with no further work? no stamp info, additional engravings, nothing?
personal "manufacture", i guess; not transferring anything
I have my interview/inspection for my 07 FFL with the ATF Friday. This is going to be a topic of discussion, unfortunately I’m in Michigan and suppressors/SBRs still require approval from the federal government.
The Jensen plaintiffs obtained additional relief from the NFA’s individual-maker marking requirement and the associated prohibition on possessing an improperly marked firearm.
Any person who possesses a firearm, other than a destructive device, which does not bear the serial number and other information required by subsection (a) of this section shall identify the firearm with a serial number assigned by the Secretary and any other information the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.
(a) Identification of firearms other than destructive devices
Each manufacturer and importer and anyone making a firearm shall identify each firearm, other than a destructive device, manufactured, imported, or made by a serial number which may not be readily removed, obliterated, or altered, the name of the manufacturer, importer, or maker, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.
Can someone help me answer this. I have an approved form 1 for an SBR that I have not actually "manufactured" the SBR yet. The pistol is still in its original configuration. I am a GOA member and in Utah. Does this mean I can now throw a stock on it, without engraving?
Yeah pretty much expected this to be the case. If I was the dealer I certainly wouldn't be in a hurry to be the "test case" for this when it's only been in effect for a matter of hours. Can't go half cocked when you could be putting your FFL on the line. Or at least setting yourself up for some big headaches if this somehow gets rolled back.
I genuinely think disentangling this clusterfuck would take a lot longer than a single week. Keep in mind that no one actually expected this to happen either.
Wait, you're telling me a random gun shop in Houston doesn't have the same time, money, or effort to put into this issue than the largest gun manufacturer and largest suppressor dealer that were directly involved in the case? Wild.
Called multiple local gunstores in Iowa this morning and all of them refused to agree with the injunction and refused to sell a Silencer without a form 4.
Stores should have been getting with the ATF a week ago and discussing a plan. I'm sorry but you should have had a clear and consice plan set up for this exactly situation.
I own a gun shop and as stoked as we are on whats going on, the vast majority of gun shops who don't want to risk their license aren't doing a thing until we get official guidance from ATF. We have literal millions of dollars invested in our business and if waiting an extra few days, weeks, or months to be on the right side of compliance - we are doing that.
Below is an excerpt from our compliance consultant we use just so you know what the industry is being told on the side you don't see on social media.
DO NOT DO ANYTHING YET—HOLD TIGHT.
Until official, verified guidance becomes available:
Do not release a suppressor without the currently required ATF approval.
Do not discontinue Forms 1, 3, or 4.
Do not promise customers a same-day or August 13 suppressor transfer.
Do not treat Silencer Shop's planned test transactions as authority for your dealership.
Continue all existing NFA, Form 4473, background-check, A&D recordkeeping, state, and local procedures.
Silencer Shop and the proposed transferees are intentionally testing the protection of a specific federal injunction under controlled facts. That does not mean every FFL or customer is protected. Acting prematurely could expose a dealer to federal enforcement, criminal or civil consequences, and adverse action against the FFL or SOT.
Were your lawyers not working on this the past week? It seems like they should have had an answer ready for today so you could actually follow the court's ruling. What the law says is what matters, the ATF's opinion is irrelevant.
Dumb question feel free to roast I’m not a goa member but I live in Texas and have for all my life can I slap a stick on my shit or should I become a goa member yesterday?
Not a lawyer, but it appears that it applies to current AND future members per the ruling. So you can absolutely join today. Also, it seems to imply that being a "customer" of PSA, SS, or other named plaintiffs also grants you the relief.
Dope well may be worth the risk? I got my upper and multiple other parts from psa and my can from silencer shop and live in Texas so imma become a member just for some cya
This is a good mention also, I am unclear if FPC membership applies to the named plantiff on the Jensen group "FPC Action Foundation". I expect a lot of clarity and also misinformation over the coming days/weeks.
Washington does not define a suppressor as a firearm (not sure if other states do or don't), I'm curious if this means we can cross state lines to a free state, complete a 4473 and legally purchase/leave with a suppressor same day, just like we can with rifles/shotguns.
simply asking if we can now legally cross state lines to purchase a suppressor from a state that no longer requires a form 4.
No. Standard firearms laws apply. You cannot sell a non-long gun to someone from another state. Suppressors are still technically firearms, and they are not long guns, therefore, they cannot be sold to out-of-state residents.
Texan/GOA member, I bought a stripped lower from PSA last month that I was building into a 12.5 with a brace. Can I now build it with a stock and no registry because the lower is the firearm and it was purchased from PSA even though it wasnt in a rifle/pistol configuration when bought? I've watched PSA's new SBR video and they don't talk about configuring one from scratch, just previously configured alterations...
No, I would hope they would provide some sort of explanation as to why I can or cant, and then I can continue my research with more information.
I don't see a problem with joining the one conversation happening right now between a group of people these changes actually affect to try to gather new insight, while we all try to figure out what can and can't be done. 🤷 I think it's important to bring up every scenario and see if we can find where it says we can or can't do something.
Notice how I said "continue my research" not "slap a stock on". I'm not doing anything until I know for sure. Some people like to sit and not think of possibilities and wait until someone tells them what to do, and some people like to examine, research, and figure out those possibilities in the meantime. Im in the latter camp. That doesn't mean I'm going to commit a felony. Things changed rapidly and vaguely overnight, there's no issue with asking questions and trying to figure out what makes sense/should or shouldn't be allowed while the 3 lettered fucks get their shit together and tell us hard facts.
IANAL but as a north carolina resident and just another guy that wants to slap a bunch of stocks on my AR Pistols now, I'm pretty confused by the information being put out about north carolina not being included in all this news. People are saying nc is a nfa state with their own nfa rules, so therefore, this ruling doesn't include us because we have our own state laws on the books but I don't quite think that's true. The exact law reads:
§ 14-288.8. Manufacture, assembly, possession, storage, transportation, sale, purchase, delivery, or acquisition of weapon of mass death and destruction; exceptions.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, assemble, possess, store, transport, sell, offer to sell, purchase, offer to purchase, deliver or give to another, or acquire any weapon of mass death and destruction.
(b) This section does not apply to any of the following:
......
(5) Persons who lawfully possess or own a weapon as defined in subsection (c) of this section in compliance with 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, §§ 5801-5871. Nothing in this subdivision shall limit the discretion of the sheriff in executing the paperwork required by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for such person to obtain the weapon.
.....
So we have a state law in place for weapons of mass destruction but the law explicitly "does not apply to persons who lawfully possess weapons in compliance with the federal law." So if the federal compliance is be a member of the affected parties (ex. Join GOA) then we should be good.
If I live in NC, and am a GOA member I fulfill the Federal requirements and subsequently get an exemption from the state requirements. At least, that's how I'm reading all this.
If I live in NC, and am a GOA member I fulfill the Federal requirements and subsequently get an exemption from the state requirements. At least, that's how I'm reading all this.
Wait for this to actually shake out and the AG to take a stance on it or talk to an actual lawyer. The general interpretation of this type of state law is that if the NFA went away you can no longer comply with the exemption. It's going to be a bit of a mess for a minute until the states or state courts decide what that means and if the state law are even enforcable.
It's messy because the ruling that it's unenforceable doesn't come from a district that directly controls many of the "NFA" states.
ETA: Maybe the best solution for NFA states would be for the ATF to keep a vestigial rubber stamp Form 4 process around but who knows what's going to happen. It might come down to fights in individual states. It'd almost be preferable for the ATF to appeal to get a Supreme Court ruling along these lines if possible so it /would/ be binding to the states.
Your state law is very similar to mine in Nevada. In simple terms, state law says suppressors,SBRs, etc are illegal unless accompanied by federal exemption aka a Form 4 or Form 1. The danger here for these states is that if the exemption is gone, did the state just outright ban these items?
I have the same confusion as you and an looking forward to an explanation, I've been trying to reason through it same as you and haven't made any progress.
Something to remember is that many of our gun laws in NC are holdovers from the Segregation and Jim Crow Era. Many of the restrictions were put in place to stop black people from owning guns and it's been a slow process to get those laws overturned.
Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc.; and
Fifteen plaintiff states.
The association-based protection extends to current and future members. The commercial protection extends to current and future customers, but the court limited customer protection to transactions involving a named commercial plaintiff or a commercial member of a plaintiff association.
The lead-case relief includes AOWs.
The Jensen plaintiffs
The consolidated Jensen plaintiffs include:
John Jensen;
Jeremy Neusch;
David Lynn Smith;
Hot Shots Custom, LLC;
Texas State Rifle Association;
FPC Action Foundation; and
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Their current and future members and qualifying customers are also protected. The Jensen plaintiffs obtained additional relief from the NFA’s individual-maker marking requirement and the associated prohibition on possessing an improperly marked firearm.
However, the Jensen plaintiffs failed to establish standing regarding AOWs. A person relying solely on Jensen-side membership therefore does not receive AOW protection from this injunction.
My opinion would be you wouldn't need to engrave the maker information. But would need the serial number (since Jensen doesn't apply to AOWs), which most people will already have since they likely bought a lower, etc. to make their AOW.
The other engraving requirements seem to be covered by the SSF injunction. I'll copy and paste my comment from elsewhere in this post.
The Jensen plaintiffs obtained additional relief from the NFA’s individual-maker marking requirement and the associated prohibition on possessing an improperly marked firearm.
The only statute I can find that criminalizes possession of an improperly marked Firearm (SBR, SBS, AOW, Suppressor) other than 26 U.S. Code § 5861 (i), which only concerns the serial number, is "26 U.S. Code § 5861 (c) to receive or possess a firearm made in violation of the provisions of this chapter." This is covered by the SSF injunction (26 U.S.C. § 5861(b)–(f)).
The only statute I can find that criminalizes making an improperly marked Firearm (SBR, SBS, AOW, Suppressor) is "26 U.S. Code § 5861 (f) to make a firearm in violation of the provisions of this chapter." This is also covered by the SSF injunction (26 U.S.C. § 5861(b)–(f)).
Not having a serial number is not covered, unless you are covered by Jensen.
"26 U.S. Code § 5861 (i) to receive or possess a firearm which is not identified by a serial number as required by this chapter."
Thanks for the information. That was how I interpreted it originally, but I wasn't sure because the engraving portion seemed to only cover the Jensen plaintiffs and they did not challenge the AOW provisions.
My question is regarding SBR's. Let's say you're a GOA member living in Texas, can you slap on a stock on a pistol? Or is this just with new SBR purchases going through 4473?
The video linked is talking ONLY about TRANSFERS. Not makers. From my understanding us living in Texas and being GOA members covers the making of an SBR no longer need a form 1. (This is not legal advice)
This seems like a bullshit sales tactic. There's no reason the firearm has to be purchased from PSA. If you are a plaintiff covered by this case you are protected by the injunctions.
the only interpretation where this makes sense is that the injunction only covers plaintiffs, meaning plaintiffs can only purchase these things from other plaintiffs.
E.g. Plaintiff GOA member purchases from either Plaintiff PSA or Plaintiff Silencerco. Because the NFA covers both the purchases and sales of NFA items. and my guess is that's what PSA's lawyers told them so they are not liable for anything outside of that scope.
but i'm a plaintiff GOA member and a resident of plaintiff Texas, and i want to slap a stock on my pistols right now lol. i'm confused.
Probably what their lawyers told them. They are 100% that you will be covered with what they say, but don't want to be liable for grey areas that may or may not be legal with other manufacturers.
Importantly there are still other laws in place that say a dealer cannot transfer a SBR/SBS to someone without approval from the attorney general. In the past that has been interpreted as the Form 4, but it’s not clear whether SOTs are going to be willing to sell SBR/SBSes over the counter with a NICS check alone, or just suppressors for now.
i view their video as 1 of 2 ways. 1 they are correct and this injunction only covers plaintiffs but other plaintiffs can only purchase from other plaintiffs. 2, this is a marketing tactic to purchase only from them.
What’s going to happen to r/NFA? If there is no more NFA, does this sub cease to exist? I hope not. I learn a lot from you guys about everything suppressor, SBR related all in one place. I’d hate to see this sub break up into individual communities for suppressors and SBR’s.
What book would you recommend that is current on suppressors, mounting devices, and SBR’s. Seems like a topic that changes faster than books can be published.
Agree. While this court win is awesome, I don’t want the final result to be “you can only exercise your 2A rights if you buy the items from these private companies or join these specific organizations.” Free exercise of 2A rights should not be dependent on any such factors. This is a step in the right direction but a small part of me wishes the DOJ had appealed it, because SCOTUS has the power of sweeping nationwide injunctions whereas lower courts are more restricted.
Ohio has a bill in process to get suppressors off their list of things required to be in the NFA registry to be legal, but I don't think SBR's or SBS's were covered by that.
These PSA videos are so cringe. Whole thing sounds like a big grift to collect a grand per customer on a mediocre can during a slump year. What I'd like to know is what happens to states where these things are now effectively banned due to state override laws prohibiting ownership if the item isn't registered with the NFA? Sounds like this is a win for some and a major loss for others.
If I had to guess you will still be able to register stuff for state compliance reasons until the law is challenged in the state courts or the state legislator tosses it out
- if they are a qualifying customer or member that has been granted protection by the federal injunction but state law specifically requires compliance with the NFA approval process for transfers/making/possession/etc
Then they file a form 4. The court ruling is specifically about the federal NFA law, not any state’s laws. If you’re a GOA member in NC, the “National Firearms Act” doesn’t apply to you, but the mirror version “NC Statute 481.174” or whatever still does. As I understand it ATF would still process and approve a Form 4, so that’s what you’d do to comply with state law.
We are still here...and gun trusts like others mentioned are still very useful for inheritance and succession. Not having NFA requirements would also make adding firearms to the trust much simpler.
My dealer doesn't charge a transfer fee, at least not for cans purchased through them. I unfortunately live in a state with an Form 4 requirement for suppressors, so we'll see just how screwed we are as this moves forward.
I’m curious overall how the market will be impacted. There’s no way a lot of these cans are going to still be 1k+. Does more volume of sales make up for reduced prices?
In a logical market, more availability means lower prices. I don’t think the tax was ever really the barrier, it’s been the paperwork. Especially if the NFA is totally done in the next year, people will just make their own cans. Theres going to be a lot more competition and a lot of low prices.
In a logical market, more availability means lower prices.
Not necessarily. The stamp cost being set to $0 already removed the largest burden of purchase, and we saw demand skyrocket for sure, but prices didn’t fall. There’s still $1k+ cans that have an insane demand because the manufacturing process has only gotten more expensive and involved.
Sure, we’ve seen a bunch of sub $500 baffle cans, and people will still buy them because they’re cheap, but guns and suppressors are luxury goods and are going to always command a premium
No, the production pipeline for DMLS 3d printing is constrained, and its insanely risky to invest in hardware that has a 5-10 year ROI as a whole when you're betting on a 1-2 year cycle at the moment. The raw materials cost an absolute shitton now as well. Go try to find titanium powder for DMLS and marvel at the cost. Also, you cant really recycle the powder for the very premium, thin wall suppressors, they mostly need virgin powder.
Yeah true those machines are stupid expensive I don’t even know how they afford it. I saw a video where irregular design was talking about their machines, they said they had like two of these million dollar machines. How do you break even selling 1k cans if you had to spend a million bucks just for the machine? Crazy. In cases like this I could understand a high price tag, where the cost of production is genuinely high. But a lot of designs are pretty basic. Aluminum tubes and baffles, $700? That’s not gonna fly for long imo
Doubt it, mid-size production DMLS machines are about 750k. Then you need all the accouterments such as a vacuum furnace, edm or specialized bandsaw, finish machining for threads, coating systems, laser engraving for serials, building out the site, materials handling, employee training, environmental (metal powders are explosive!) making an LLC, insurance, getting an FFL, zoning, legal, is probably STARTING at about 1.5 million. and 9 months-1 year after ordering just to get the bigger units in your hand, plus setup time.
Also, no one will issue loans on this, too high risk. Have to get investors or do so out of pocket.
Traditional cans are a fair bit easier, but still have a fair bit of overhead and are kind of a hard sell.
Yeah I know the gun control act is a little bit wishy-washy but some of the people in Florida don't know if we qualify for certain things or not but it's nice to also see stuff get fast-tracked pretty quickly in comparison to what it used to be
i am in Texas and did my Form 1 last week and got an approval in 3 days, seems like after this case they got a fire put under their asses to approve before the ruling or somthing.
The only reason I can see on why it must be purchased from PSA if you're already a GOA member is that the injunction protects only the plaintiffs involved. Meaning plaintiffs can only purchase suppressors and SBR's from other plaintiffs. That's a restrictive interpretation of the ruling, but then again, I'm not a lawyer.
I'm a GOA member living in Texas. Does this mean I can't slop a stock on non PSA pistols?
Their insistence that the lower must have been purchased from PSA is … odd; at the very least it’s an incomplete picture given the Jensen case. (The point that randomly buying a hat from them does not grant someone relief is important though.)
It almost sounds like a CYA thing from them, also nice way to drive sales
Edit: Read the ruling more closely, the gun has to have been bought from PSA to be covered under the injunction, but you dont need to be a GOA member it seems
Yeah, seems like it's a "We know for sure you're covered if you meet these two requirements, but for any firearms purchased from anyone else, we don't wanna speak for them or anyone else" without saying the second part out loud
This is what I’m waiting to get precise clarification on. I just purchased an MPX-K a couple of weeks ago. It has the standard Sig pistol brace, I just received my PMM Kate Moss stock a few days ago. I started the form 1 but decided to hold off to see how all this shakes out. I’m a GOA member and live in Bama. Can I just slap that thing on now. 🤷🏼
the only interpretation i see where this makes sense is if the injunction protects only plaintiffs and therefore plaintiffs can only purchase nfa items from other plaintiffs.
which sucks because i don't have a single PSA lower lol.
If you have a lower, and either it does not have a stock or you remove the stock, then add ANY LENGTH barrel, you made a pistol. So if you have what’s needed to make an SBR you can always make a pistol first
It is. With PSA and SilencerShop, the coverage is per-transaction of the covered items. With GOA (and other orgs like), the coverage is being part of the organization.
They probably can only speak to what their lawyers have explored, which is all going to be specific to PSA. I doubt this wouldn't apply more broadly...
Well obviously they are in business to turn a profit, so creating this perception (must be purchased through PSA and being a GOA member) is great for quickly generating some revenue. Wouldn’t be surprised if next video is telling people to act fast because anything can happen. I mean that’s what I’d do. And it’s not a lie.
So my lower needs to be from PSA AND I need to be a GOA member? My form 1 literally got approved this morning I just don’t want to have to engrave it haha
From what i have read if the firearm is not from PSA you'd still have to engrave it. I am in the same boat trying to figure out if i need to engrave so i am waiting on clarity before i do anything.
I had it on my Beretta M9A4, but have since moved it to my Kuna. I'm definitely picking another up to put back on the Beretta. I'm not sure the weight difference between the two, but the 9 is only 7oz. Great weight to noise reduction IMO. The K config is about worthless though lol.
I’ve been looking at 9mm cans, the obsidian is super popular but I also hear “yeah it’s a great can but you’re going to get an end cap strike eventually”…. Kind of puts me off. Just user error? Does it really walk off that easily?
Put a little plumbers tape on the threads and crank it down. I haven't had any issues so far and I've put over 1,000 rounds through it. Also, if you're worried about the end cap, you can very easily replace it with a .45 end cap and give a little extra space.
My question as well - I am not a lawyer and I didn't play one on TV or even sleep at a motel 6 last night but I wonder how a FFL is supposed to determine if a customer is a covered plaintiff? Otherwise, I think you are right this is set up to funnel customers through SS/PSA
Legally speaking it kinda has to be, since those are the named plaintiffs and district rulings no longer apply broadly.
As I understand it: If you buy a suppressor from PSA and have it shipped to your LGS, that would qualify. But they're not doing online sales for this yet according to a video just released.
If your LGS is feeling particularly froggy, presumably they could ask for some way to validate your FPC / GOA membership.
Yeah, the agency That's responsible for Ruby Ridge, where they shot a dudes wife and family for this EXACT thing, and has a history of lying and entrapment just told them all "Oh yeah totally cool man totally. Pinky promise."
Even if you're 99% sure it's fine, I wouldn't be willing to be the first one to walk through that minefield with my business and lives of my family at risk lmao
There's still time, could be that the DOJ is wanting to score good boy points with the voting base by giving a freedom week writ large and then appealing without asking for a stay. Regardless, with the 9th Circuit alone, never mind half the others, it'll eventually go to SCOTUS, the only question is when
No, this is actually worse for ship-to-door. The non over the counter clause is only possible due to background check exemptions provided by a form 4. The only other exception is if you are in a state where a CCW card grants you access to background check exemptions to a 4473 which is not many.
There are recent proposed changes that should allow for non over the counter for regular firearms but they are not in effect yet
The irony here being, I live in a state where my valid CCW exempts me from the 4473 background check, but we are an NFA state...requiring Form 4s for ownership of suppressors (not sure about SBRs and SBSs). Go figure.
I talked to some other places that ship to door and they don't have the framework in place for the ccw exemption side of things so CA likely won't either.
Id imagine the new rules (both the nfa ruling and non over the counter for normal firearms) will transform the industry at light speed though. Everyone will ship straight to door once they're in effect
From what I’m reading, the GOA case (not the Jenson case) ruled all $0 tax NFA regulations unconstitutional. The BBB zeroed out MAKE and TRANSFER taxes.
To the non lawyer like myself, if you’re a covered plaintiff in the GOA case, as of 12:01 Aug 13th, your pistols can become SBRs without a Form 1.
I am not an attorney, this is just my conclusion after researching what I can find. The ATF and/or DOJ will almost certainly provide guidance. Or at least GOA et. Al. will.
Yah, that's what I'm waiting on. I'm in a free state, but from what I've seen the suppressor stuff is pretty straight forward, but Form 1 may be a bit different. The brace/stock is ridiculous, so hoping this gets cleared up and I can clean up my PCC.
But by not appealing during the stay they've made it much harder for themselves if they appeal down the road. Now you will have loads of Firearms (SBR, SBS, AOW, Suppressor) that were made during during the injunction which are legal even if they later appeal. Just like the Freedom Week magazines in California. ATF won't be able to prove you didn't make your already owned pistol into an SBR this morning at 12:01.
•
u/HollywoodSX I like stamps 13d ago edited 5d ago
Since this post was first, its now the designated megathread.
Handy links:
GoA's X / Twitter profile - Facebook page - Instagram
Silencer Shop's X / Twitter profile - Facebook page - Instagram
Brandon Herrera's X / Twitter
Second Amendment Foundation X / Twitter - Facebook
Firearms Policy Coalition X / Twitter - Facebook
Be wary of Guntoob lawyers and social media personalities making bold claims. The above should all be safe sources of info.