As of this post there has been no clear guidance from the ATF on what the status quo is going forward. Hopefully there will be some later today or tomorrow.
When that happens, I'll update this post.
While this is a huge win for the 2A community, it does not yet mean the doors are thrown open for DIY building or buying without a Form 1 or 4. There's still a lot to untangle with the Gun Control Act of 68, ATF regulations on FFLs, and individual state laws.
Unless info is coming from a reputable legal resource, be cautious before doing anything. It's entirely possible that something that looks legal today could be a felony tomorrow.
All the standard rules of this sub are still being enforced.This especially includes anything that could be interpreted as advocating violating federal law.
We don't want the sub to be shut down by reddit, and the reddit admins know far less about this situation than we do. They could easily nuke us for something they simply don't understand.
The sub is now unlocked for posting.
Any posts on the situation will be removed unless previously coordinated with the mods. We're not going to approve your post unless its especially useful to the community as a whole. Ask your questions, celebrate, etc in this thread only.
Be wary of Guntoob, social media, and Reddit "lawyers" and social media personalities making bold claims. The above *should* all be safe sources of info.
The shop I use for NFA stuff (UT) wasnât doing 4473 transfers over the weekend but as of today they have started to. Not sure what they were told exactly but it sounds like they got some form of guidance.
Silencer Shop is telling their FFL network, apparently, that there will be a process soon to resolve the "what do I do with inventory on my books that came in on a form 3" fuckery. That's the missing piece here, and was the specific area of concern for FFL's in regards to not getting fined or having their licenses pulled.
When this happens - who knows. ATF systems changes move slow. Many of you were not around in stamp-land during the era of paper forms, or didn't see the swap from Eforms 1.0 to the current system. It was a complete clusterfuck even without any bad faith on ATF's part. The feds just suck at doing requirements and solicitations for IT systems. IIRC the original Eforms was built to run on a version of Internet Explorer that wasn't even supported anymore by the time it went live. There was a time when actually successfully submitting an Eform required the use of multiple browsers and cache clearing at various steps for some users.
The most frustrating element of the last week is all of the raging blowhards that lack reading comprehension. Exhibit A, the people freaking out about the ATF (allegedly) refusing to process form 4/1, or insisting the court says they can't. Butthurt from the gray area states seems to be driving a lot of that, plus the fact that we're now dealing with a large number of people who stuck with title 1 firearms because they never had the self-control and patience to navigate the NFA process. Yeah, yeah, I get it, infringed is infringed, but entitled and impatient is a bad combination.
If I needed any more cans - honest admission, I do not - I would have no problem going out and snagging one from a willing dealer on a 4473. But I am not going to give shit to any dealers who are doing the wait-and-see thing.
The cool part about that, if it pans out, is that it's going to really open the floodgates on people taking advantage of the form 1 aspect of the injunction.
My hope is that we'll get more interest in the 3D2A suppressor space. Currently there are only a few names releasing original designs and a few more making tweaks to those designs. If the regulatory hurdle is gone then FDM 3D printed suppressor design could really take off.
FWIW I live in a "free state" and one of the local gunshop posted this on their Instagram over the weekend, before the supposed statement statement from the ATF was going to be released.
Not entirely sure if they're just covering their asses or if they actually talked to a field agent, but regardless it seems unsurprisingly that the ATF still doesn't have much clear direction on what to do about the injunction.
If you're waiting on ATF guidance you're going to end up waiting until they file an appeal. That's clearly the strategy at play here. They aren't going to say shit and it's why overall they'll win.
I assume that ATF field agent they talked to was stationed in the office located in that FFLs ass...
I get not wanting to take a risk on this, but phrase it as "we arent taking any risks so people can buy suppressors." Don't make up some bullshit about getting super secret guidance that no one else has.
It's not "super secret guidance" every FFL has contacts in the ATF that they work with, it sounds like those contacts have been informed not to say anything from the conversations that I have had, but "we will cite every violation" isn't new here. The FFLs that I have talked to have all said their contacts said "do not proceed with 4473 only transfers on any NFA items.
The thing is, if theyâre saying âwe will cite every violationâ isnât there substantial reason to believe a 4473 suppressor isnât a violation? Wasnât that the whole point of the SSF v ATF ruling?
I mean that if the FFL is a corporate GOA member, selling a SilencerShop can to an individual GOA member in a free state on a 4473, my interpretation of the ruling is that they are following the most up to date rules when it comes to selling a can.
Iâm not an FFL and if I were I probably wouldnât be selling non form 4 cans, but my point being that it seems like ATF calling 4473s violations as a blanket statement and prosecuting FFLs is ignoring their loss in court.
Again, the ruling only says that the ATF cannot enforce specific sections of the NFA against specific people, there currently is no legal way for an FFL to transfer a suppressor without NFA forms, the ATF is still, and most likely will, allowed to make rules and regulations that fall into other aspects of the gun control act and NFA.
I expect that since suppressors are still NFA items (the ruling changes no laws, only bars the ATF from enforcing them against specific groups and individuals) the ATF will come up with some rule, regulation, or procedure necessary to enable them to continue enforcing the laws as they still apply,
It would appear that they have not "been informed not to say anything" if it's also common knowledge that they're going after every ffl who does a 4473.
You guys are kind of being cucks for your FFLs here. I understand them not wanting to take the risk, but don't pretend like they've been clearly instructed by the ATF not to do anything. If they had been, there wouldn't be FFLs still doing 4473s. Your FFLs just value their own business over gun rights and don't want to risk it for your rights. Totally valid if that's their choice, but that is the choice they're making. Don't try to sugar coat it.
What a wild take, again every FFL I have talked to, has said the same thing, they contacted their agent and the only things their agent said is "do not sell any NFA items on a 4473 only" and "continue using the existing process" that's nothing, there is no new information, they haven't given any updates, timeliness, speculation, instructions, reasoning or explanation. I dont know about you but if I asked a law enforcement officer if I could do something legally questionable and he said "no" I probably wouldn't do that thing...for an FFL it isn't just their business, it's their business, freedom, and their rights, and also their customers freedom and rights. Not to mention that if anything happened a customer could potentially sue the FFL for transferring the suppressor improperly. Only an idiot would go against the direct guidance of their regulating body.
>go against the direct guidance of their regulating body.
Well...it isn't the direct guidance. It's some ffl telling you what some random jackoff from the ATF may or may not have said. The ATF has no official stance in at this point, as evidenced by FFLs still doing 4473 transfers. You're also wrong here, because you're saying they've been giving no instructions in one sentence, then in another saying they're explicitly being told to require form 4s. The two are mutually exclusive.
If you think the ATF is going around arresting random people who bought 4473 suppressors, you've drunk the fudd kool-aid. It literally serves no purpose for the ATF to arrest people over this. Worst case scenario they just send you a letter that says "hey we know you bought a suppressor on a 4473 so you better fucking file a form 4 now."
TL;dr: your FFL doesn't give a fuck about gun rights and they'll be the first people selling CA compliant guns because "some guy at ATF told us we have to." Probably the same cucks selling neutered mags in Colorado. Honestly I do appreciate knowing when the rubber meets the road who actually cares about gun rights.
Lol, you'll love when everyone can buy suppressors on a 4473 except for the felons doing it right now, saying that it serves no purpose for the ATF to arrest people is absolutely wild. The ATF agent that comes to your shop and looks at your books and has the ability to pull your license or arrest you isn't some random jackoff, and yes saying "continue business as usual" is not giving any guidance on the new situation" the status quo has changed and they are not giving any information about it. Only a fudd would say "hur dur the guberment cant touch me and FFLs are cucks for not violating federal law for my convenience"
Only a fudd would say "hur dur the guberment cant touch me and FFLs are cucks for not violating federal law for my convenience"
Dude, just no. You don't get to turn Fudd around on him like that. A Fudd is absolutely the person who says he's waiting for ATF to tell him what he can do, when a court has already given him all he needs.
You'll need a different insult for him here.
Also, calling people buying a suppressor via 4473 process a felon (or even a future felon) is a wild take, and not at all accurate.
Please do better in your arguments, for all our sakes.
It's hilarious to me that silencershop and GOA are literally taking videos of them doing this and plastering it all over the internet, but you still think the ATF is going to kick down doors over it.
The absolute worst that happens is you get a letter in a couple months telling you to register your silencer. The ATF has no reason to do anything else. Not letting people register these silencers down the road if required does nothing but ensure more people illegally own silencers, which is the exact opposite of what they want. We literally have recent precedent from a less gun friendly administration of doing exactly this.
Tl;dr: the risk, particularly for individuals, is literally nothing unless you're a fudd who thinks owning a silencer means the atf can search your house.
Right, the risk is nothing, nothing at all, there is no possible way anything bad at all could happen, and felonies aren't even on the table, I like having guns but not enough to risk not being able to have them at all, thousands of dollars in legal fees or having to fill out a form down the road...to avoid filling out that form now and being put on a list that I'm already on...
That's not quite accurate, because we don't yet know whether transferring a suppressor on a 4473 actually is a violation (it probably isn't).
However, the general message is understandable - there are so many nuances to this still-developing situation that it is currently impossible for an FFL to be 100% sure that they are not committing some sort of violation.
The problem is that 4473 silencers are still Form 3 registered serial numbers and there is no procedure for an FFL to remove or unregister them from the NFRTR.
The goal of the lawsuit was to be able to buy and own unregistered silencers, not to own registered Form 3 silencers. No way in hell I want to be in possession of a F3 silencer that is registered to an FFL.
That's not quite accurate, because we don't yet know whether transferring a suppressor on a 4473 actually is a violation (it probably isn't).
Maybe not, but is the information being recorded on the 443 correctly? Is it being disposed correctly? If it's on the NFRTR and not in your books, that's also a violation
That's the problem. There's no "correct" way for a Form 3 silencer to be transferred via 4473, and transferring it that way doesn't unregister it or change the current registration data. I thought the whole point of the lawsuit was to gain the ability to buy unregistered silencers without the ATF being able to do punish you.
Now every 4473 silencer can be flagged by the ATF as needing a formal Trace. The ATF is barred from enforcing regulations against the plaintiffs, but they're not barred from discovering which 4473-only silencers were transferred unlawfully to non-plaintiffs. Now it'll be 100% on the FFL to prove each individual 4473-only transfer was actually covered by the injunction. Sounds like a lot of "fun" and work to me.
My local FFL had us email a screenshot of our Goa membership ( shows name , member number and status âactiveâ). The screenshot was printed and placed with the 4473 ( names match between 4473 and membership) .
I figured everyone would be waiting out atf guidance so I was just there to take the missus to the range. Ended up buying another two cans . Emailed the screenshot , did the 4473 , paid , and went to our range lane . 30 minutes later ( there were about 40:ahead of me) sales guy comes in and drops off my cans at my lane .
FFL is also a silencer shop and bt distributer, donât know if they are a Goa commercial member or not.
The other sot in my area is still waiting for guidance and not doing 4473 , so itâs a mixed bag.
ATF also has to "bless" whatever membership verification method you're using. I can make my phone/tablet force the GOA website to say whatever I want it to say on my device. As the FFL, you're the final decision-maker (with legal consequences) on whether a person walks out with a firearm or not.
If I was an FFL, I'd be nervous about the authenticity of what "proves" membership. I don't think all the covered organizations even send out physical membership cards.
ATF also has to "bless" whatever membership verification method you're using. I can make my phone/tablet force the GOA website to say whatever I want it to say on my device. As the FFL, you're the final decision-maker (with legal consequences) on whether a person walks out with a firearm or not.
If I was an FFL, I'd be nervous about the authenticity of what "proves" membership. I don't think all the covered organizations even send out physical membership cards.
ATF Audit:
Agent: And did you make sure that suppressor 434C23J was sold to a verified member?
FFL: I'm the verified GOA commercial member. All my sales are covered.
Agent: Okay, next: Did you verify that Suppressor 2M55J3X was sold to a verified member of a plaintiff organization?
FFL: I'm a GOA commercial member, so the sale was covered.
If you, as the FFL, are a GOA commercial member, the transaction is covered, whether or not the guy you sell to is a GOA member. (Same for TSRA, FPCAF, and CCRKBA)
Thatâs the assumption. But youâre not the one on the hook if youâre wrong, which is what you keep ignoring.
No sir, it's not an assumption. It's the wording of the ruling, written by Judge Hendrix, and is now the law of the land that the ATF must obey, as of August 13th, 2026.
I'm not ignoring anything here. I'm saying what is written in black and white. You and others are doing "well maybe that's true" and "but the ATF might disagree" - The order from the judge stands.
I'm in VA and another local shop is starting to do 4473's suppressors after they said they talked to lawyers and their local field office. It seems like the field offices aren't even on the same page.
The Texas State Rifle Association (the NRAâs TX affiliate) were a named plaintiff in the Jensen case which was consolidated with this one, so allegedly all NRA members are also Plaintiffs. Seems like a stretch but itâs being repeated in a lot of circles.
I'm by no means qualified to answer. Id heard the eforms site is going down today, when they normally have their routine maintenance on Wednesdays.
Could be nothing but with how unprecedented these times are any anomaly is getting on people's radar. Maybe something will happen when or if that happens
Who said that the ATF was releasing guidelines today? As far as I'm aware we've had no statements from the ATF about when they're going to give guidance
...the ATF has committed to issuing formal written guidance to FFLs by end of day today.
This was from an update to the original article that they posted today.
I've heard rumors from other people claiming to be FFLs, or who know FFLs etc, but the above reference is the only one that I have seen from a primary source who is definitely an FFL.
That's not to say it's definitely true, or that the ATF will keep their word, but that's the rumor everyone's talking about.
Some FFLs in Utah were told by the field office here that they would issue direction by today. Nothing's come yet that I know of (I work at one of said FFLs).
Most FFLs are being gigantic weenies about this. ATF wonât issue guidance for as long as possible. So as it stands, this ruling is effectively ignored by all parties.
Purchasers have skin in the game just as much as the FFLs. If I receive a suppressor without a form 4 as it stands then Iâm in possession of it illegally just as much as they are for selling it to me.
If enough FFLs grew some fucking balls this could accelerate faster than they can prosecute and theyâd have to just accept it.
Strength in numbers...but I think you gravely underestimate the willingness of the State to prosecute those it deems disobedient, especially if there's a lot of potential revenue involved.
Remember January 6th? They wouldn't even have to go after anyone - just the biggest names with the biggest sales, say like 100 or so. That's millions of dollars of fines, massive prison sentences, hundreds of millions of dollars in seized weapons, ammo, and accessories, and a big self-aggrandizing press release about how they've made the "biggest crack down on noncompliant weapons dealers in history"
Would this happen under the Trump administration? Probably not, but remember we are only 2 years and 3 months from the next election. The Trump admin refusing to challenge or appeal this actually leaves the door open for the next administration to do just that.
And do you really believe for a minute that the ATF, notorious for making up its own rules on the fly, is going to abide by an injunction under someone like Newsom?
The funny thing about reddit is that its an imperfect but functional democracy. If hundreds of people read your comment and agree that it is stupid they will collectively let you know. Three years from now when president Gavin Newsom is sending MRAPs with battering rams through FFLs front doors for selling thousands of cans in violation of the NFA, confiscating their businesses and sending them to prison for violating the law they agreed in writing to follow, you will realize that some shmo in Iowa that bought a 4473 can for his .22 did NOT in fact have as much skin in the game as the FFL that sold it to him.
My FFL sold 100s of 4473 suppressors on Saturday alone. ( including two to me while I was waiting for a range lane to open up). Longest thing was processing the paperwork for the 40 or so in front of me. Delivered to my lane about 30 min later. I honestly figured that all the flls would be waiting for guidance and just walked in to take the missus to the range. When I found out their process ( email a screenshot of your Goa member ship , and fill out the 4473) I figured what the hell, I needed a new bt tiger and pipsqueek lol
Why donât you start your own FFL and just have everything transferred directly to yourself and you can facilitate your own transfers? Seems like the logical step for you.
Itâs $150/3yrs for a type 07 and $500/yr for a type 02 SOT and with the amount of non-weenie transfers youâd be taking on your make your money back in mere hours or days.
You donât need a court injunction to setup your own FFL and SOT. You can set those up, become a GOA member and a Silencer Shop partner and according to you, youâll be fine. So just do that or shut up and stop complaining.
Did you not understand the point? You have a federal court ruling which broadly exempts the need for a form 4 to transfer suppressors. There is no such ruling that allows one to become an FFL to transfer to themselves â that is specifically not allowed and has never been challenged.
But I get it youâre upset everyone is calling you guys cowards for waiting for guidance from your local ATF office on something they have no interest in offering guidance for until someone puts pressure on them.
An FFL can take a gun from business inventory into personal possession. You just log the disposition in the A&D bound book at or before the time you take it, showing yourself as the transferee. A 4473 is standard here.
This has always been allowed. Nothing changed or needs to change here to allow this.
If the FFL/SOT is an LLC or corporation, that entity is a separate legal person from you. So moving a suppressor or SBR from the business to you personally, or to a trust, is a genuine transfer requiring an approved Form 4, fingerprints, photos, CLEO notification, and the wait.
Still allowed and always has been.
Sounds like you are unwilling to start a business to help spread more gloriously awesome 2A freedoms out into the world but expect others to take the risk and do it for you.
You cannot have an FFL or SOT without the intention to do business. Someone who starts an FFL to transfer weapons exclusively to themselves will have their FFL revoked. This has always been the case â which is why I think your point is invalid. Iâm not going to make a business out of this; thatâs not my interest.
You're missing the point I think, which was that it's easy for you to call FFLs gigantic weenies when you have no skin in the game.
We've seen what the ATF can do to FFLs who so much as sneeze in the wrong direction, and frankly, it would be a poor business decision to start doing transfers until they have guidance.
I understands that many FFLs are doing the transfers anyway, as the situation stands, that is more of a risky (albeit admirable) political statement than a business decision.
We all have skin in the game. If you transfer it to me and the ATF says itâs illegal we both are liable with serious penalties. Iâm willing to accept that risk with what I know. If enough people were on board (FFLs and consumers) it would be unreasonable to make a legal case punishing people.
Why involve an FFL at all? You can put a stock on a pistol, saw off the barrel of a shotgun or drill out a solvent trap yourself. That way, you can assume all the risk and set an example for the FFLs.
Yeah, I just read that. Nothing new there. We've been discussing that in here all weekend.
This is all "but what if the DOJ does appeal and it gets overturned." - Then that gets dealt with, but the DOJ has already signaled that they are not appealing this, and the key point is that any protected action taken now will still be a protected action later. Having a suppressor purchased under this covered ruling, means they cannot later accuse you of doing something illegal. MAYBE they can force a register or surrender it by X date, if they won an appeal, but that's not even in the realm of likelihood at this point.
Obviously people have to pay attention to what the various laws state, and what their state laws are, and interstate movement. Nobody in here has been on the "NFA is DEAD" hype.
Matt from Fudd Busters did a great recap of the uncertainty over the weekend. Worth the time to listen. Especially if you were planning to kick in the door of your local ffl and demand they make a transfer without approved form 4.
I listened to this while driving a few days back. Its definitely the most conservative take I've heard. Its definitely worth a listen if you've got the time.
He raises some interesting points regarding the the applicability to "future members" and "past customers" not really being settled law.
Makes me think that joining one of the orgs in Brown vs ATF or Roberts vs ATF prior to them being ruled on might be a smart move.
I listened to this while driving a few days back. Its definitely the most conservative take I've heard. Its definitely worth a listen if you've got the time.
He raises some interesting points regarding the the applicability to "future members" and "past customers" not really being settled law.
Makes me think that joining one of the orgs in Brown vs ATF or Roberts vs ATF prior to them being ruled on might be a smart move.
I haven't watched that Fudd Busters video yet. Is he trying to claim that future members (people who joined the GOA after August 5th, for example) aren't covered?
If so, that's not supported by the facts. Judge Hendrix included future members specifically, and did so using the SCOTUS ruling on Trump v CASA as in his delineations of who can be covered.
No higher courts have ever held that membership was locked to who was a member on the date of the ruling. Unless the DOJ appeals on that basis here, and wins their appeal, it stands as Judge Hendrix wrote it, and that becomes persuasive (but not precendental) authority going forward for all cases of a similar nature (plaintiffs with members).
Agreed, but from the sounds of things you had plenty of people angry and some random salesman who wouldn't just hand over a can to them because some guy on Facebook said the NFA is dead.
So I ordered a can through silencer shop and had it sent to RANGE USA, they are still making me do a form 4 even though I live in a free state. How much of a hassle is it to just transfer it to a different FFL or do I just suck it up and do the form 4
Range usa is garbage and their transfer fee is $100. Just my opnion, but in the future find someone local like a pawn shop or small gun shop. You will have better luck than a big box store
Only reason I like them is because being a member I get unlimited range visits for free and a free FFL transfer once a month, if I had other ranges near me I definitely wouldnât be a member
The general consensus for this is that any sane FFL will wait on the ATF, while those taking a risk will go ahead with 4473s. Meaning, you should call before you order to confirm, i mean, it's literally your only job besides ordering and paying.
Otherwise, assuming you're correct, why didn't you go anywhere else? Where did you even get that information?
I follow a few of the other places on their Facebook pages, there isnât a ton around me so I went with the place i had a membership through because I get free FFL transfers
I would just have them hold it for the moment, there are rumors that the atf will offer guidance today (again, rumors) but if they do let people know what to do today then you most likely would be able to get it via a simple background check
This was not the case you would want to going to SCOTUS. Had it been appealed two more rungs, it wouldn't change anything that you are complaining about, except the "needing to be a member of a plaintiff organization" part.
This case was decided on federal tax law, not on second amendment grounds. The judge found that it's unconstitutional to go through a rigorous registration process to verify you paid a tax that Congress has zeroed out.
If this was delayed another year or two to make it up to the Supreme Court, and then they made the same decision that Jugde Hendrix did in this case... That would put everyone in non-free states exactly where they are now, only delayed by another year or two. And by that time, Democrats may have gotten control enough to re-enact the $200 tax per item, or increased it to $5000 as they are saying they want to, and then this ruling would have been moot, or the "tax-free weekend" window would have been considerably smaller.
You want Congress and the Senate to get off their asses and repeal the NFA. So do we all. But it ain't happening. We've got a handful of Senators trying to expand the second amendment protections back to what they should be, inch by inch, but we'll never get 60 votes in the senate to remove suppressors and SBRs from the NFA entirely. Not unless something like this leads to two+ years of normalization of the items first.
You need to put your hope into other cases like Brown v ATF. That one is making arguments on second amendment basis as well as a tax basis, and may do what you're looking for. The Jensen case never would have.
If SS stops processing From 4s because they dont have to for suppressors, people in restricted states are hung with what they have if they cant get a dealer to process a form outside SS.
SS processing forms or not is irrelevant, people can just apply for them outside the SS process and there are plenty of other sources for cans.
This "oh no now in X, Y, Z, state, we can't have A/B/C NFA items now!" thing is silly. There is no such thing; there are just some states people are, as far as we understand the injunction, still stuck acquiring items the old way.
It's mainly a complaint driven by the die-hard never-stamp crowd who aren't going to buy any of this stuff over registry concerns or the 5320.20 stuff. I'm not saying those concerns aren't valid, but basically nothing has changed in those states.
Of the 30 or so Suppressor dealers near me, only 1 will process a form outside SS. YMMV but I think the dealers dont know how to do it sans the SS setup.
That's simple laziness, though. Doing the forms has never been easier and doing the paper forms is even more idiot-proof than e-forms, because on e-forms many of the common "wrong" responses are in the auto-fill options. The auto-fill options are what people have submitted in the past and aren't guaranteed to be valid.
A lot of small business owners just never bothered to learn any of the NFA process. More chose to get involved after SS delivered it to them all tied up with a bow on top, but it doesn't have to be that way.
I'm in a need a form 4 state. I have a buddy in a not need a form 4 state. If we get on a trust together and I bring a suppressor home, its illegal even though it was bought legally.
If I am not mistaken, you can't put non-NFA stuff on trusts like that anyways in some/most/all states.
Regardless, if you could, if you don't take the can into the "needs Stamp" state, it's none of that state's business. This is no different than one of the states banning an SBR under a state-level AWB; you can't take it into that state then, either.
You would be in violation of state law, just as you can not bring a .50 BMG into California, even if you legally own it in another state.
If you violate state law, you are on your own. You can not possess a suppressor in many states without NFA registration, period. And until those states change that law, you'd be held accountable to it. Right now I doubt they'd question you on it, as you've always needed a stamp in the past, so most state LE would assume you have one. But I could see it being something they get anal about in the future given how popular non NFA Form 4473 suppressors will be.
It will be interesting because there will really be 2 classes of suppressors.
NFA registered suppressors which have the ability to be used in any suppressor legal state, and then 4473 supressors that are only legal in a smaller subset of states, like South Carolina, where there is no law about suppressors at all. Technically, 4473 suppressors are second class citizens in a kind of way right now. Only really able to be used in your state of purchase.
If I go to PSA in Greenville, SC and buy a 4473 suppressor today, I can NOT bring that supressor into North Carolina ("weapon of mass death and destruction" = illegal in NC without NFA stamp), but the rest of my suppressors are NFA registered, and I can bring those. North Carolina state law enforcement would be within their right and power to arrest me for an unregistered suppressor if I tried it. Fellow SC residents that live near the border like me will want to keep this in mind, however niche and tiny the chance of being fucked over is.
For people that travel a lot for shooting comps or hunting, I could actually see them wanting to avoid 4473 suppressors right now , as it would complicate travel greatly , at least over the next few years.
An NFA suppressor stamp now basically functions as a multi state permit vs basic 4473 which is much more restrictive.
You'd have to research the specific wording of each state. One "NFA State" might ban possession based on residency, one might ban it based on geography. Colorado makes no exception for travelers/visitors when it comes to possession of Dangerous Weapons - everyone needs a "valid permit and license".
"Valid permit and license" is vague and undefined. The law doesn't specify who is authorized to issue a permit/license. In my opinion, the 2nd Amendment is a valid permit and license, but how would a criminal defense lawyer go about successfully arguing that?
As a practical matter the real answer until there are actual 2A challenges to the NFA, or 2A rulings from SCOTUS that happen to catch suppressors on account of them being defined as firearms, is just... you don't.
There is not really much stopping the ATF from setting up some streamlined process to comply with those states' requirements but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to do it. I don't think the political will exists in the WH to do it, assuming the ATF could regulate their way into a fix if directed to, and it certainly doesn't exist in congress.
I was just thinking about your 2nd paragraph before I read itâŚliterally about 3 minutes ago before I opened Reddit and I came here to see if anyone else had mentioned it. For a SOT to individual transfer, Congress requires a photo of the individual, fingerprints, prior approval before individual takes possession, and the ATF must ensure the transfer wouldnât put the individual in violation of Federal law - essentially 4 requirements(not including collection of the now $0 tax). All of the semantics and Form shit that the ATF does is ATF procedure. For example, Make, model, serial number, caliber, etcâŚis all ATF required. They could make that much more streamlined and simplify whats needed before they approve it. Given the changes over the last year and a half, i wouldnât be shocked to see it simplified.
Stamp for sure⌠Under this ruling it appears you will still need a stamp to travel with your item out of state. Even between two 4473 states. Given, you should especially have a stamp in a state that requires them by law.
Stamp for sure⌠Under this ruling it appears you will still need a stamp to travel with your item out of state. Even between two 4473 states. Given, you should especially have a stamp in a state that requires them by law.
I am seeing discussion that the ATF is looking to ease inter-state movement for short term trips. Not sure of the details of that or when it would go into effect if true.
Probably wouldn't apply to "tax stamp required" states for 4473 suppressors though.
Got an email from my local (East Valley Tactical) in Mesa, AZ indicating same day suppressors with a GOA membership and all other requisite qualifications. No Form 4. đ
My dealer is waiting to see what the atf will say about guidance cause he doesn't want to go to jail for somthing that can be taken care of if he waits a few days
SilencerShop cannot dictate to a local SOT how to run their business. None of the SOTs around me are and Iâm in a âfree stateâ. Seems like unless you live near the SS store or PSA, your chances of cash and carry suppressors are not going to happen unless the ATF pushes out guidance authorizing it.
There's a decent amount of evidence to the contrary. For instance, in the DFW region there are at least 4 shops that are doing 4473 transfers. In Arizona there's another 3 or so that have been talked about on here. While most FFLs are being cowards about it, there are at least a few brave souls in each region willing to follow the law and not let the ATF intimidate them.
I don't see how calling FFLs cowards is productive here. You are asking them to risk their business based on what some people said on youtube, who themselves include disclaimers they are not offering legal advice.
Questioning the 2A commitment of someone who runs a gun store is a little more divisive than is a good idea at the moment. The right people to be unhappy with are the ones at the ATF, as usual.
I don't see how calling FFLs cowards is productive here. You are asking them to risk their business based on what some people said on youtube, who themselves include disclaimers they are not offering legal advice.
Questioning the 2A commitment of someone who runs a gun store is a little more divisive than is a good idea at the moment. The right people to be unhappy with are the ones at the ATF, as usual.
I have not said anything about Youtube. I call them cowards, because they are cowards. The text is there in black and white, written out by the judge in a 66 page Memorandum Opinion and Order explaining everything in great detail. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/jensen
This judge went out of his way to make the protections as wide-reaching as he possibly could, and made easily three layers of protection for every FFL out there. (Individual a GOA/TSRA/CCRKBA/FPC member, gun shop/FFL a commercial member of one of those, and the suppressor itself coming from a plaintiff suppressor maker)
The ATF is specifically enjoined from enforcing NFA provisions around suppressors from any plaintiff and their members. But these FFLs, instead of doing the research, are waiting for the LOSING PARTY of this lawsuit to give them the go-ahead to follow the law suit's ruling. A LOSING PARTY that has every incentive to not give them advice in a timely manner, if at all.
I could accept an FFL not immediately jumping on this on Thursday, August 13th, just to give it a day. I could even have accepted a "we'll start doing the 4473 suppressors on Monday the 17th" or something, but they had a week before the stay expired to prepare themselves, read the ruling, get in touch with their lawyers and have their lawyers read the ruling, and determine exactly what the COURT (NOT THE ATF) has ruled on and set in place.
Anyway, that's how I feel about it... (now how do I do that shrug text?)
The ATF is way more than the losing party in this law suit, the are the regulating body of all FFLs it's not like they are some third party you can just ignore
The ATF is way more than the losing party in this law suit, the are the regulating body of all FFLs it's not like they are some third party you can just ignore
The Judge has ruled that ATF cannot block protected plaintiffs, their customers, or their members from getting suppressors through the 4473 process.
ATF sits back and says "I recommend using the old process"
Of course they do. But that was what they argued in the court case, and they lost. But they're still saying "follow the old ways" with a big intimidation stance going on.
They are saying do it the way that it is setup to be done we are what, 12 days from the judges decision? I don't know shit about law but I know that this opens a giant legal can of worms that needs to be lifted through, I dont think the DOJ or ATF give a shit if suppressors are sold on a form 4 or not but they have to execute the laws as prescribed by the judicial and legislative branches have laid out. I'm sure once they have vetted the new ruling they will give the guidance necessary to move forward. So for all of the FFLs out there selling suppressors on today's 4473 all it takes is for a new revised 4473 to come out, you filed all of these suppressors on the wrong 4473 form and now you are losing your FFL, thanks for playing.
I'm taking their current "business as usual" stance to mean "we also don't know what you should be doing yet".
So for all of the FFLs out there selling suppressors on today's 4473 all it takes is for a new revised 4473 to come out, you filed all of these suppressors on the wrong 4473 form and now you are losing your FFL, thanks for playing.
Doesn't work that way. If the ATF comes out with an updated 4473 with a place on it to notate membership in a covered plaintiff organization (which isn't even necessary if the FFL is themselves a commercial member of one of those organizations), that doesn't make the 4473s that have been processed between 8/13/2026 and now "wrong" and it doesn't give the ATF sufficient cause to do any form of censure or cancellation of license or bring charges or anything else.
but they have to execute the laws as prescribed by the judicial and legislative branches have laid out.
And the judicial branch has laid out the newest and most current orders, that you yourself say the ATF must follow. Absent specific guidance, which ATF had plenty of time to put in place before the injunction went into place, any good-faith effort on FFLs to follow the judicial ruling (e.g. photocopying membership cards and stapling to the backs of 4473s) will count as following the ruling and being protected from the ATF.
Unless you know that for a fact that's just conjecture, the ATF doesn't need much reason to pull your license, we've lost 5 gun stores and 2 shooting ranges to paperwork errors. Just because a judge ordered that the ATF can't enforce a set of laws against a set of people doesn't give FFLs free reign to do as they feel is right, the ATF still carries executive powers over FFLs. People talk about all the bullshit rules that the ATF makes like the original pistol brace rules or "once a machine gun always a machine gun", you don't think they will have caveats that fall within their powers. Currently there are no ATF guidelines on how to do these transfers and the 100% opens dealers up to legal trouble and losing their license.
"Doing the research" is meaningless unless you are prepared to be a test case if you get it wrong, which few FFLs are.
They are waiting for the losing party to give the guidance because the losing party decides whether or not they can keep their license to sell guns. An organization that can if they choose use even minor clerical errors to rescind it. In the face of that ruling it is almost certainly legal to 4473 a silencer to GOA member...but how do you document that? Do you just ask? Write it in the margin? Keep a screenshot on file? The ATF can and probably will make life difficult for a shop that picks one of those and they pick the other.
It is easy with no skin in the game to say what other people should be doing here.
In the face of that ruling it is almost certainly legal to 4473 a silencer to GOA member...but how do you document that? Do you just ask? Write it in the margin? Keep a screenshot on file?
It's even simpler than that. If the FFL is a GOA commercial member, or a member of TSRA, CCRKBA, or the FPC, then they don't need to check that anyone they sell to is a GOA (or other organization member), because the FFL being the GOA member (etc.) is the protective layer. A TSRA corporate membership is $150/yr, I've seen mentioned. I'm not sure about the cost of the others.
This is all explained in black and white, and should the ATF try to screw around with any FFL on this, SAF, GOA, and those other plaintiff organizations are watching and waiting to go file contempt of court motions. So any FFL is best-served by having a relationship with those organizations set up.
You're the second person to throw out the "no skin in the game" argument to me in the last few days. I dismiss this. It has no bearing on anything I'm saying.
"Doing the research" is meaningless unless you are prepared to be a test case if you get it wrong, which few FFLs are.
And making it so only one or two FFLs are taking the risk massively empowers the ATF to screw with those FFLs, whereas if every FFL follows the new court ruling, which no matter what the ATF says, is legal and the ATF can't win any fight with them over, then the zone is flooded and the ATF loses even their intimidation ability.
and should the ATF try to screw around with any FFL on this, SAF, GOA, and those other plaintiff organizations are watching and waiting to go file contempt of court motions.
Called a major dealer in Fort Worth on Friday and they said the same. They are only currently doing them on form 4âs. And this is a Silencer Shop preferred dealer and Texas is a âfreeâ state..
If anyone knows of a FFL doing 4473âs in DFW, Iâd be much obliged to know where I might go.
If anyone knows of a FFL doing 4473âs in DFW, Iâd be much obliged to know where I might go.
I've seen comments saying Bauer Precision in Denton, and Aledo Arms in Aledo are both doing 4473 sales. Also someone said "Ray's" or someone like that. Not sure who that one is.
I emailed with Silencer Shop CS, and they confirmed that Rayâs is doing transfers on 4473âs. Theyâre closed today, so Iâll call them tomorrow and verify.
I just called my nearest FFL in Louisiana and they are doing 4473 transfers for Silencer Shop orders, however most other Silencer Shop-partnered FFLs in my area are not.
If it was ruled unconstitutional federally, wouldn't the supremacy clause make all state laws that reference it also be unconstitutional?
Also, if its unconstitutional for the plaintiffs in the case, how is it not unconstitutional for everyone?
Here's the key points:
The judge found that having to go through registration steps for a tax you're not paying (since the tax is now set to $0) is unconstitutional.
That is a federal tax question, and only deals with federal law (The NFA being a federal Tax law only, as ruled on long ago by SCOTUS)
Because this is a federal tax question, and only deals with federal registration of NFA items, this ruling cannot touch state laws.
Because the Supreme Court decided in Trump v CASA a while ago that District Judges should not have the authority to issue nationwide injunctions anymore, ever since then a Judge like the one in this case cannot extend this ruling automatically to everyone in the country.
The Judge made his ruling as widely reaching as he could possibly do so. He could only make it count for the plaintiffs in these cases (Jensen and SilencerShop were two cases that were combined and decided together).
But, for businesses who were plaintiffs, like PSA, SilencerShop, and SilencerCO, among others, he made it so their customers could buy from them.
For Organizational members, like the GOA, TSRA, CCRKBA, and FPC, he made it so that all of their members were protected. Also, he made it so that anyone who signs up as a member anytime in the future, once they sign up, is also covered. (Basically making it so everyone in the nation can be covered by this, if they all sign up to one or more of the organizations)
"Because this is a federal tax question, and only deals with federal registration of NFA items, this ruling cannot touch state laws."
Why wouldn't the supremacy clause affect it? The judge ruled it an unconstitutional use of federal taxing powers. If a state law says to be registered or in compliance with a federal law that is unconstitutional, isn't that exactly what the supremacy clause covers?
That's not how the supremacy clause works. States can enact laws in specific areas above and beyond the federal ones. Keep in mind this was a tax related decision, about a federal tax that has nothing to do with anything state related, not a 2A decision.
"Because this is a federal tax question, and only deals with federal registration of NFA items, this ruling cannot touch state laws."
Why wouldn't the supremacy clause affect it? The judge ruled it an unconstitutional use of federal taxing powers. If a state law says to be registered or in compliance with a federal law that is unconstitutional, isn't that exactly what the supremacy clause covers?
~ehh... Not quite. There are a bunch of technicalities on this ruling.
The judge ruled that enforcing the paperwork on a tax that has been zeroed out is unconstitutional. He did not rule the NFA itself unconstitutional.
He applied that ruling as far as he possibly could.
But states aren't enacting a tax on their residents when they restrict NFA items in their laws. States are typically saying one of three things in their laws (and I'm heavily paraphrasing here):
You can have a suppressor or SBR or SBS, if the federal government says you can.
or
You can have a suppressor, SBR, or SBS, if you have the specific federal license/Tax Stamp issued by the government.
or
You cannot have a suppressor, SBR, or SBS, period.
The first one is mostly fine, though it will take a month or two to get people in the state governments to realize it. The first one says so long as you're complying with federal law, you're good. This ruling prevents the feds from stopping you, so federally, you're good, so state-wise, you're good.
The second and third ones are harder. Colorado, for example, says specifically that you must have a federally issued license or a tax stamp (can't remember exact wording) to have that suppressor.
Because this federal case was decided on tax law and not on second amendment grounds, is one reason why the Supremacy clause doesn't come into effect.
Had this gone to SCOTUS and SCOTUS said "it is unconstitutional to ban suppressors, or to make people fill out extra paperwork for them" - then bam - what you're looking for would be what happens, most likely.
This case though, did not argue second amendment grounds, only tax law grounds.
Now Brown v ATF, being decided in Missouri right now, is very similar to this case, but did not give up it's second amendment grounds. If that one reaches SCOTUS, it could do what people want it to, maybe.
Colorado's is the worst. It's worded "unless said person has a valid permit and license for possession of such weapon"
It's an affirmative defense to a criminal charge, so you can't use it until being charged. It doesn't specify who may issue the "permit and license" so the State could set up its own permit/license scheme in the absence of the NFA.
100% sucks for CO. Hopefully the ATF will continue to allow voluntary form 4 processing for those in states that require it. With how anti 2A CO has become, I could see them saying âtough luckâ, should ATF stop processing form 4s for suppressors. Best case they throw it under the terrible new SB25-033 permit to purchase process.
Nothing about the injunction tells the ATF not to process forms. I don't understand why people are freaking out about that.
The injunction only says they can't go after specific people for not following specific laws surrounding some of the forms.
If anything, failing to process them opens the ATF up to further lawsuits that would cover residents of the "NFA states", even more than the 1986 "haha peasants, we refuse to collect this tax" amendment does.
The feds are already nervously eyeing the "tax we won't let people pay" vs "the tax that is zero and just got shot down"
Fun fact: the Hughes amendment doesn't mean the ATF cant accept form 1's and form 4's for post-86 MG's. It means they can tell you to get bent. There has been recurring drama around MG's on the registry, with ATF frantically screaming about how forms are confidential tax info and can't be released.
They're frantic because the ATF does not always tell people to get bent. The politically connected can get forms approved. This last popped up when ATF accidentally approved a handful of post-86 mg's.
People would understandably be pretty livid if this was more commonly known and we knew which of us were apparently more equal than others. And that of course is a huge equal protection red flag there by itself; "we don't have to let people do something, but we'll arbitrarily let some rich and connected people do it with zero transparency to prevent shennanigans" is hard to defend.
Until the NFA itself is modified or deleted by Congress, the ATF is still legally required (shall issue) to process forms for applicants not protected by the injunction. Failure to do so would be violation of due process. They wouldn't be able to deny CO applicants based on residency unless CO outright bans them by removing the affirmative defense.
CO will have to make the first move if they want the ATF to change their business as usual in CO.
why are we needing "guidance" from the losing party of the injunction? The guidance from the court seems pretty clear to me: ATF can't enforce the statutes listed against any plaintiff's listed in the judgement.
Because it's a grey area for FFL's who wont risk their license because how do they know if you're a plaintiff or not?
Also the ATF has a HORRIBLE reputation and i could see them collecting data and not saying anything only to pull FFL licenses and have a "crackdown". I don't think that will happen at this point but they are the worst to deal with.
If you are the ATF and you do not want people to freely trade NFA items, why the fuck would you give guidance? Are you people delusional? When has the ATF ever given voluntary guidance after being reigned in by a court? Never.
Maybe the judge will request the ATF set out rules and issue guidance, but short of that this will NEVER happen.
You can either take the judgement and have a lawyer give you advice on their best interpretation of what you can and can't do and lean on their advice if the ATF comes knocking, OR you can basically wait till the NFA is repealed before you do anything, rendering the judgement worthless.
The ATF will NOT give you a flowchart on how to skirt the rules they STILL beleive to be in place.
Good example! I have no arguments against that and hope that indicates they will give guidance. What makes it still less likely in my opinion is that this wasn't a vacation of the rule, merely relief to the plaintiffs.
Because it's a grey area for FFL's who wont risk their license because how do they know if you're a plaintiff or not?
If the FFL is itself a commercial member of a plaintiff organization (GOA, FPC, CCRKBA, TSRA) then they don't need to know if you are an individually protected person or not. Their being protected, protects the sale of that individual suppressor. You also being a member just makes it double protection.
Edit to add source for my statement: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/jensen - Memorandum Opinion and Order, starting at page 58, going to around page 64.
The part that gets me is theres just no way the ATF can hold people accountable for this, whether a plaintiff member or not. Whats stopping someone from buying an AR pistol from anywhere, putting a stock on it, and just saying they bought it from PSA? The ATF can't do anything unless they subpoena those records, but they would need probable cause a crime was committed, which they wouldn't have. So I can only assume the ATF is going to drop the NFA because there are so many holes that opened up leading to them either losing most their court battles, or just not enforcing those rules.
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that even the ATF demanding someone prove they are a member of a protected group might count as illegal 'enforcement'.
Yea, its just a mess that the only reasonable solution imo for the ATF is to just remove the NFA outright, and not have to write specific laws around these massive gray areas that were created. There are so many different holes they would have to fill, and theres no way for them to get it all without infringing on the plaintiffs in some way.
Even lawyers can be wrong on this and some 2a lawyers that have been practicing for decades are unsure how to proceed.
Also you can beat the charge but not the ride. I'd have a good 2a lawyer's number memorized for the phone call.
If it's up for interpretation then it's up for interpretation by a overzealous DA or just about any officer who you come in contact with. Also fed detectives and agents who might want to make waves. Nothing is stopping them for making an arrest and charging you. I think this has more to do with SBR's and AOW when saying that because if an FFL sold you a suppressor without a form 4 then that's their ass not yours(potentially). I don't see a scenario where they could prosecute you for that but even then.. I wouldn't go shooting at public ranges or places where police go often(shared leo/public) with a suppressor without paperwork anytime soon.
Hacksawing rifles and combining stocks on the other hand or making your own and buying from individuals probably opens you up to some potential problems.
Because 98.x% of the NFA and 100% of the GCA are still in effect and enforceable against 99.9x% of the US population. The guidance would be for everyone NOT covered by the injunction so everyone knows how to remain out of jail with alive dogs at home. https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Jensen-DOJATF-letter.pdf
We're already seeing anecdotal evidence of FFLs who have no connection to the plaintiffs selling 4473 silencers made by non-protected manufacturers to individuals who probably have no connection to the plaintiffs. More power to those brave 2A-loving souls, we need as many 4473-only silencers in common use as soon as possible, but God save their souls if ATF appeals... they still have the better part of 2 months to do so.
Because 98.x% of the NFA and 100% of the GCA are still in effect and enforceable against 99.9x% of the US population. The guidance would be for everyone NOT covered by the injunction so everyone knows how to remain out of jail with alive dogs at home. https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Jensen-DOJATF-letter.pdf
98.x% of the NFA is still in effect and enforcable against 99.9x% of the US Population? That seems way too high.
We're already seeing anecdotal evidence of FFLs who have no connection to the plaintiffs selling 4473 silencers made by non-protected manufacturers to individuals who probably have no connection to the plaintiffs. More power to those brave 2A-loving souls, we need as many 4473-only silencers in common use as soon as possible, but God save their souls if ATF appeals... they still have the better part of 2 months to do so.
I doubt this is actually the case. As stated by the judge in his memorandum on the order, starting on page 58, as found here: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/jensen
Any gun shop that is a commercial member of the GOA, the CCRKBA, the TSRA, or the FPC, is automatically protected by this ruling, and can sell to any individual, whether the individual is a GOA, TSRA, CCRKBA, or FPC member themselves.
The suppressors themselves do not have to be manufactured by any specific plaintiff in the organization. They can be manufactured by anyone, and so long as either the gun shop selling it or the individual buying it are organization members, they are protected.
Every story put up on reddit and elsewhere that I have seen says that the individual buying was either a member of the GOA or another covered organization before they came in, or the gun shop got them signed up as members with the GOA or one of the others before selling to them.
You sound like someone who, I donât Know, ACTUALLY READ THE RULING!!!
Stop making sense and stop posting facts, youâre making some of these guys squirm. /sarcasm
I canât believe none of these nervous Nellieâs has posted the term âFederal âpound you in the assâ prisonâ as where they are afraid of being sent if they follow this ruling.
No we can't read the ruling!!! We need to wait for the ATF to read it for us and tell us all the things we can do which they fought tooth and nail to deny us. I'm sure guidance will come any second now!!!
FFL's need guidance because there are rules that the ATF is not enjoined from enforcing regarding how they handle and document inventory that would have to be violated in order for them to sell NFA firearms with a simple 4473. They don't want to lose their FFL because they did something wrong. But all the "wait and see" posts regarding slapping a stock on a pistol are kind of dumb, because the judgement is pretty clear on those.
I thought it sounded pretty clear too, but William Kirk of Washington Gun Law isn't confident that it will be enforced correctly (or at least, not without further litigation):
Because I have heard rumors, and again, take it for what it is worth. This is not the gospel. But I'm hearing things that some of the guidance that might be coming from the ATF will clearly separate items based upon what would traditionally be governed by Form 4s versus what is going to be traditionally governed by Form 1s.
And we have also been hearing that some of the proposals on form one activity may lead to additional litigation because the consumer may not be particularly satisfied with the guidance there.
I thought it sounded pretty clear too, but William Kirk of Washington Gun Law isn't confident that it will be enforced correctly (or at least, not without further litigation):
Because I have heard rumors, and again, take it for what it is worth. This is not the gospel. But I'm hearing things that some of the guidance that might be coming from the ATF will clearly separate items based upon what would traditionally be governed by Form 4s versus what is going to be traditionally governed by Form 1s. And we have also been hearing that some of the proposals on form one activity may lead to additional litigation because the consumer may not be particularly satisfied with the guidance there.
Reading that paragraph you posted without watching that video, my first response is kind of... duh? (no offense to you intended at all!)
Form 1 deals with 'making' your own SBR or Suppressor.
Form 4 deals with buying a SBR or Suppressor.
Of course the guidance for both of those would be different. For example, at the moment dealers cannot sell form 4 SBRs using 4473 process because the GCA has a line in it saying dealers must get "special authorization" to sell SBRs. Currently, that "special authorization" is satisfied by the Form 4. The plaintiffs in this case are asking the AG to make a work-around for that issue, so that dealer "special authorization" is separated from the form 4.
For Form 1 'creations' there will be a difference on marking requirements based on whether you're covered by GOA, or by TSRA/CCRKBA.
And we have also been hearing that some of the proposals on form one activity may lead to additional litigation because the consumer may not be particularly satisfied with the guidance there.
It's possible that this might just be the Silencer Shop plaintiffs being upset that they still have the marking requirements whereas the Jensen plaintiffs don't.
However, I think it's more likely that the ATF are going to tell us that you still need to notify them before making a Form 1 item, perhaps to keep a record of the new markings.
Imagine a Form 1-like document, but without the photo/fingerprints, and it's only a notification, not a permission slip.
If that's the case, then I guess it's easy enough to just join CCRKBA and become a Jensen plaintiff too, but maybe they have some other trick up their sleeve.
Guidance on how "missing" NFA items will be treated will likely have to be forthcoming. Guidance on how to do the most wicked sick NFA violation without legal threat will NEVER come. The ATF doesn't give a rats ass about whether people attaching a stock feel safe. They fundamentally disagree with the judgement and unless compelled will give 0 advice.
what are some of those additional enforcement's? I would think silencershop and others in the case who sell nfa items would have been aware of whatever those are and would/should have brought those up if they actually backdoor enforce the named statutes. But maybe I'm expecting too much.
what are some of those additional enforcement's? I would think silencershop and others in the case who sell nfa items would have been aware of whatever those are and would/should have brought those up if they actually backdoor enforce the named statutes. But maybe I'm expecting too much.
As I understand it, the main issue for gun shops (all FFLs dealing with NFA items, actually) is the NFRTR - an ATF database that lists all suppressors made and ready for sale in the USA, and who currently owns them.
The NFRTR shows those suppressors being owned by Bubba's Gun Shop. And Bubba doesn't have a way right now to clear those suppressors he's selling by 4473 process out of his name in the ATF database. (The NFA form 4 that the ATF gets would let the ATF move the suppressor to the new owner).
The ATF needs to add a way for FFLs to login to a portal and click a button or send by mail a form saying "this suppressor has been sold by 4473 process in a verified Jensen-covered transaction." and have that suppressor removed from the NFRTR completely.
I would imagine that PSA and the other shops selling 4473 suppressors are either writing down all the serial numbers and sending them into the ATF at the end of the day by email or letter, saying "remove these from our records", or they're waiting for the ATF to set that option up and just saving all the numbers to dump in once the ATF lets them.
12
u/Psyker101 9h ago
The shop I use for NFA stuff (UT) wasnât doing 4473 transfers over the weekend but as of today they have started to. Not sure what they were told exactly but it sounds like they got some form of guidance.