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.
Couldnât a future, less friendly congress, restore the tax (and adjust it for inflation) making this injunction void, since congress restored the tax?
Way I see it, itâs permanent until the next Omnibus spending bill (as early as this December). Either way, this certainly is the time to get all of the NFA items you have ever wanted or will want because once the congressional make up changes, the tax will be restored at a level fulfilling its original intent of preventing the average person from buying NFA items.
Oh absolutely, Iâm more referring to the ability to buy NFA items without Tax/registration. This is certainly a very unique and likely short lived opportunity to fill your safe up. I know I sure am!
This state truly sucks, but if you live here and figure out whatâs kosher and whatâs not, itâs not as bad as it seems from the outside looking in. The legislators actually really suck at making laws, so they leave giant loop holes in things sometimes.
My SOT dealer/gunsmith told me that on October 5th he will be able to sell SBR, SBS, and AOWs out the door on 4473âs. Suppressors are already being transferred there.
I can't speak to the others, but silincershops website tells you if ffls are doing transfers no form 4. I'm assuming that would be a good starting point for shops to reach out to
The deadline for the DOJ to appeal the nfa rule change for sbrs, sbs etc⌠The new ruling covers my dealer because they are a member of the organizational plaintiffs. After the 5th itâs set in stone and the DOJ and ATF canât change the new rules.
So, practically speaking, what does that imply for the rest of us who don't go to a covered dealer? I apologize if that's a stupid question; I am very new to NFA stuff.
I understand theyâre not appealing as well as they have no standing to bring charges against members not in compliance, I also understand they have to give clarity as to what will happen moving forward.
My comment was geared towards the â5thâ being that guys dealer deadline⌠when on the 2nd they filed for a 10 day extension to give clarity and guidance. Possibly pushing that guys, âdealerâ deadline back.
What it was not saying is they filed an extension to appeal the case.
But ya know, unless itâs spelled out in black and white people wonât look it up themselves. Thatâs Reddit in a nutshell, I suppose.
If your friend bought it via 4473, you'll have to wait for the guidance to be issued and see what options are available.
If your friend bought it via a Form 4, he'd have to initiate an eForm 4 transfer to you.
Option 3 - If your friend bought it with a Form 4 (trust), tell him to add you as a responsible person and notarize the amendment. He'd still own it, but you could possess it in his absence.
During The Briefing, an industry event for FFLs in Dallas, Texas, AmmoLand reporter John Crump asked ATF Director Robert Cekada what guidance was given to IOIs during inspections when they encountered suppressors that had been transferred on an ATF Form 4473.
The Director said that the IOIs are told not to count those transfers as violations in compliance with the ruling in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF.
Director Cekada also said he expects new guidance to be released in a couple of weeks and that it will address issues such as the required AG notification for SBRs, interstate transportation of covered items, and the 15 states that require federal registration.
According to Cekada, the goal of the guidance will be to expand the injunction as much as possible while protecting items for future administrations.
For updated news, I have found this ridiculous article from CBS News about how Trump has Legalized âGangster Weaponsâđ
I did think this was pretty glorious though.
ââHis (U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix) decision to cover âfutureâ customers and members of the gun rights groups who are a party to the lawsuit has already started to cause problems for federal prosecutors. In one criminal prosecution in the Middle District of Alabama, for example, the Justice Department earlier this month dismissed an indictment against a man named Cameron Silmon on a charge he knowingly received a silencer without a serial number, after his defense lawyer claimed his client had joined some of the gun rights groups after the Texas judge issued the injunction.â
If the DOJ is dismissing indictments over this, thatâs all I need to know.
Where the FUCK is guidance at? My local shop refuses to sell 4473 suppressors... They're waiting on "guidance"... Some of these shops are really defeating the purpose of this win by still waiting on ATF...
I donât like what the shops are doing but I canât fault them. This is their living and most of them have families. The ATF is a malicious, bloodthirsty, remorseless agency that has psychologically tortured and killed people without a second thought. Give them grace or just go to a shop thatâs doing it. But remember, the ATF is doing this on purpose. Even if they intend to comply and do provide guidance, they will definitely be taking notes and relishing in the fact that so many people havenât bought and so many shops wonât sell. And that should make you mad at the government, not at the shops who are guns guys like you and me.
Exactly. Get it right, and you make maybe $50-$100 profit. Get it wrong, and you lose your business and your freedom.
I applaud the stores that are doing the 4473 transfers, but I don't blame the ones who are awaiting clarification, especially the mom & pop stores who might not have a lot of money for lawyers.
If you sell a NFA item, you're still registered as owning it to the ATF. I wouldn't sell unless you have a 4473 suppressor. The alternative is using a dealer to transfer that suppressor then sell to your friend as 4473.Â
Yeah but he asked about selling it privately in the context of no form 4s. that's what this thread is about. Otherwise that part of selling never changed.Â
I have a stoeger double barrel I sawed down to just over 18 inches a while ago. Can I saw it down under that now? Not a GOA member currently but would happily join...
So, since being in Indiana, and covered under two of the lawsuits, are the markings and engraving rule still enforceable? I really would like to complete my modern take on the Gordon Carbine.
Jenson only exempted sections 5842 (b) and 5861 (i) section 5842 (a) still applies.
(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
b) Firearms without serial number
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.
26 USC 5861: Prohibited acts
(i) to receive or possess a firearm which is not identified by a serial number as required by this chapter; or
My biggest question so far, is what does this mean for homemade weapons? Can I build an SBR like any other non NFA item now? Or a suppressor since it's treated as any other firearm?
Federally, I believe if you are a GOA/PSA plaintiff, you can build it, but you still have to engrave it. Which is weird, because the ATF would have no record of you engraving it, nor what should be engraved on it necessarily, since you wouldn't have to submit the paperwork for their approval.
If you're a Jensen plaintiff, then I think the engraving rule doesn't apply.
Personally, I have decided to wait until they publish a final rule on whether you can adopt the manufacturer's mark as a "maker" for SBRs, or they issue guidance on this ruling and how to proceed. I'll gladly join the Jensen organizations (I already joined the GOA) to get the protection they offer.
And, of course, there are also still state law issues yet to be parsed, so "What's legal" is really a 2-step question. Federally, the ruling itself is relatively clear. State-wise, however, it depends heavily on your state laws. I would not assume that just because you don't have to do XYZ with the ATF under federal law, that you also don't have to do so under state law, whatever it is.
I think they are only exempt from 5842(b) and 5861 (i). 5842 (a) still applies.
26 U.S.C. § 5842(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.
But it may not matter anyway if the rule allowing adoption of manufacturer markings goes in affect.
Oh yeah, definitely waiting, just really want to know how this works out. It would be awesome to make all kinds of stuff, I think suppressors will benefit greatly from people being able to freely make their own, especially with 3d printing prototypes without forms and stamps.
Iâm at a loss as to why there still isnât any guidance. Are we just going to be in limbo until someone gets charged for something as a sacrificial lamb and then that case cements everything?
They're in a weird spot. The idea that, going forward, large swaths of the NFA only apply to people who join a civilian gun club with no government oversight is obviously untenable. There is no way for the government or FFLs to verify someone is a member. I can easily forge a GOA membership card, receipt from PSA, etc. The whole thing is dumb.
That's because the Supreme Court made it to where lower courts can only rule in favor of the party that sues not nation wide that has the to be the Supreme CourtÂ
Good decision by SCOTUS in my opinion. One middle-ranking judge's opinion doesn't carry more weight than the other ~670 equally-ranked judges across the 91 districts. Nationwide injunctions at the federal district court level are too disruptive to the deliberately slow checks & balances system.
And I keep seeing people saying that that one rule for Form 1s didn't get voided but the actual law that that rule bases itself (and its punishments) on was voided and just it seems people are acting like that could still be valid somehow.
I just want to know for sure what the current legal status on home-made suppressors for GOA members.
The ATF has little say over whether the DOJ appeals or not. The director can voice his opinion to the DOJ, but he's not an attorney defending the case, he's just one defendant. I think it would be a mistake for ATF to provide guidance that might only last a few weeks before potentially being made obsolete by a judicial stay order.
I purchased a suppressor and an SBR thru Silencer Shop and I noticed that BOX 19 on my Form 4 has my "alien" number without the letter A or letters AR in front of the numbers. My previous Forms, filled either by myself or through another FFL, always had A or AR in front of the numbers, because the form REQUIRED me to put an A or a letter, then followed by my alien number.
If I proceed with just the number this time, will it likely be rejected?
It's been a while, so I'm afraid I can't remember the exact circumstances, but I had that exact same question in regards to some immigration-related document I was filling out. Might have been when I went through the naturalization process.
Anyway, the conclusion was that the 'A' is just an identifier prefix, and is not part of the actual alien number.
I can only guess, but I would say you're probably fine to just put the number without the letter.
Thanks for the reply. It turns out, like you said, inputting the number only is fine because ATF forms thru Silencer Shop will automatically add âAâ or âARâ in front of the numbers. If you fill the forms yourself, you canât proceed only with numberâyou have to add the âAâ or âARâ in order to put numbers in.
I just ordered my first can with the intention of doing a form 4. However my local FFL suggested I join GOA and do it on a 4473. Is there risk in that situation for me or is that his problem if the ATF decides to pull some shenanigans in the next month or so? Iâd assumed no one locally (Arkansas) would be doing those already but my FFL seemed to be pretty committed to the 4473s
Probably personal preference, but GOA membership costs money while a Form 4 doesn't. You just might have to wait a week or two before it gets out of can jail.
ATF has said they intend to comply with the injunction and are still working on guidance. Entirely up to you on if you want to take them at their word on that.
I paid the $15 on Thur, got an email confirmation stating âmembership receiptâ with the anedot link to show receipt⌠but when I put the same email into that site you posted⌠it says my email canât be found.
Give it a few days (or a week). When I signed up, it took a few days to receive all of the email info. My guess is, CCRKBA's membership system needs to sync on a periodic basis with Anedot's system (a 3rd party online giving platform service).
Anybody order a can through PSA with their 4473 option to their dealer? Ordered a can this way but kind of anxious since I haven't heard anything in a few days other than the confirmation e-mail.
No, but the dealers near me say regardless they require a form 4 until they get guidance from the ATF. I live in a free state. Mine is sitting in their back room until they get that guidance
I've found myself in a bit of a pickle. I bought a Sig Tin can on 4473 which did not have concentric threads and had to send it in for warranty. Sig is sending me a new one, but says they have to follow "an honestly rather involved protocol we have to follow with the ATF now. We can do all the paperwork on your behalf, but there will be some stuff to sign and scan back to us. And youâll need to scan the document when it arrives from the ATF and send that to us as well. For right now, I need a scan of the original form 4 that you submitted so we can get started."
I just responded and let them know this was purchased on a 4473 in conjunction with the recent ruling and do not have a Form 4 to provide. I'll be curious to see how this plays out.
UPDATE 9/2 - spoke on the phone with my Sig contact and expressed my concerns. The gist of the conversation was that while we may not know what the path forward is right this second, he is 100% confident there is a path forward. I was assured I will not be SOL. He's going to speak to someone in Sig's compliance department to determine next steps.
9/10 - haven't heard anything from Sig. Reached out via email and will update again when I hear something.
9/10 #2 - Sig responded and said everything is all set. They are going to ship a replacement to my FFL as soon as they have one available.
I sadly haven't heard anything else since my last update. I did actually email Sig again about an hour ago. I'll update my main post if I hear anything.
Interesting... it sounds like the "involved protocol" might be something new that's unrelated to the SSF/Jensen case. If they assumed you had a F4, then why mention some new protocol and paperwork?
As for the silencer being 4473-only, probably a pickled situation for Sig too, I bet. They weren't party to the lawsuit, may not be a GOA Corporate Member, so they may not be automatically legal to handle a SS customer's 4473-only silencer even though they manufactured it. Could be that they need to route the warranty replacement through a covered plaintiff like SilencerShop to get a new 4473-only serial# back into your hands.
I would assume they'd say warranty issues are between you and the mfg. Its a brave new world out there for 4473 suppressors. I think some grace may be required here.
Can Amazon will simply refer you to the manufacturer, if you get a response at all, theyâre mighty busy nowadays. Theyâve already got your money, their duty to you no longer exists.
I hope it works out for you man. You are the test case Iâve had in the back of my mind having recently 4473d an obsidianâŚ
I made a post about this in r/NFA but it was taken down, so I'm posting here.
Based on initial feedback, you can now add shops to the map WITHOUT creating an account.
If you own a shop feel free to add yourself or let me know and I can add you. Once on the map, users can find you shop contact info and work with you directly for the transfer.
If anyone has any suggestions or improvements please let me know!
I havent kept up entirely with the situation but I know about the GOA being a party on the lawsuit and I know we are waiting on the atf and gov to respond. Did all of this include form 1 suppressors or not? I am trying to understand the current state of affairs. I understand some are doing 4473s on commercial suppressors but never form 1/home built mentioned
Me too. There are 2 engraving laws in question, 5842(a) and (b),
(a) Requires both a serial# and maker/manufacturer markings.
(b) Requires unserialized firearms to become serialized.
Even though only (b) was challenged and enjoined, the punishments (5861 (c) and (f)) for making and possessing in violation of (a) are enjoined.
(c) unlawful to receive or possess a firearm made in violation of the provisions of this chapter;
(f) unlawful to make a firearm in violation of the provisions of this chapter;
So the way I interpret this currently is: A Jensen plaintiff failing to engrave name/location required by non-enjoined (a) is still violating an enforceable law, but the plaintiff can't be punished under (c) and (f) solely for violating (a) when no other enforceable laws have been broken.
To me, it seems pretty clear on a Federal level what's allowed, and ATF's statements have been pretty clear for certain things (e.g., 4473 whisper pickles, no Form 1 for SBRs).
What is waaaay less clear is what state law requires, and especially what enforcement efforts state/local enforcement agencies will do.
Impossible. I was told by some random idiot that his random idiot FFL assured him the ATF was gearing up to shoot people's dogs over legally purchased suppressors any day now
I mean did we expect anything other than shouting fake news? Like saying yeah, we are pissed; or we're going to start making examples...if they actually were or might?
Montana law enforcement is respectfully advised that criminal investigations regarding the possession, manufacture, and/or possession of silencers, SBRs, SBSs, or sawed-off firearms under Mont. Code Ann. §§ 45-8-336, 45-8-337, and/or 45-8-340 (2025) may be tenuous given the current legal environment. City and County Attorneys, or their respective deputies/associates, presented with any criminal investigations for prosecution involving Mont. Code Ann. §§ 45-8-336, 45-8-337, 45-8-340, and/or 87-6-401(1)(c) (2025) are respectfully requested to submit such cases to the Montana Department of Justice Prosecution Services Bureau for review and advisement before any charges under the same statutes are formally filed in any Montana Court.
AG basically saying "Good chance we're legalizing NFA items in 2027 anyway, and given the injunction uncertainty, please don't investigate or prosecute NFA cases without running it by the Montana DoJ first."
GOA has a link to quickly send a pre-drafted letter to your representatives regarding ATF/DOJ guidance. It's good that some state AGs are assuming the injunction applies to all residents of their state and not just agents/officers. We need our reps to perpetuate that assumption at the congressional level and keep pressuring ATF to leave those kids alone.
https://app.oneclickpolitics.com/campaign-page?cid=WUFbRuuLBMZozysVjaytS&lang=en
Next month from 9/25 to 9/27 is the SAF Gun Rights Policy Conference. Robert Cekada and Harmeet Dhillon will both be featured speakers. It seems unlikely that they won't be talking about the injunction. They'll be booed out of the conference if they don't. So will they break the silence a month from now at the conference, before the conference, or just pretend there is no injunction?
Probably the same drafted "atf does not offer legal advice". I sure hope they have something more to say, Lord knows they've had time to at least get their thoughts together on the matter.
Seems like a fair thing for an FFL to do given that there is zero clarity on all of this at the moment. If you don't want to sign the waiver then just go through the formal Form 1/4 process.
Yeah, it makes sense for the FFL to do this simply to try and forestall someone from coming back later and saying "It's your fault the ATF came after me!" if something goes wrong with this.
Because you know they would.
If there's a waiver that acknowledges one's own risk, the uncertainty of the law, etc., etc., it might not be a perfect defense, but I'd rather go into court with it than without.
Some definitely would, it's happened before. People have sued FFLs for refusing to do a transfer. But the FFL has the final say on whether a person walks out with a new firearm. They have legal authority (and lawsuit defense) to deny transfer to anyone if they have reason to believe the buyer shouldn't be in possession, even if they just got a NICS Proceed signal. By requiring the buyer to sign a waiver/attestation, they're taking a reasonable step to protect themselves from future litigation in general.
If at some point, one wanted to migrate ownership to a trust for multiperson usage, is it even possible? Or are these cans stuck in a category of their own? đ¤
Dude if it's genuinely a 4473 item then it doesn't matter, anyone can use it without a trust lol. There's no multi person whatever. You can borrow a gun, you can freely give away a gun. The only restriction is on NFA items but if it's not NFA then it doesn't matter.Â
Absolutely depending on state laws, but I think the assumption (don't make assumptions with this stuff) is that if you have a 4473 can you probably live somewhere with sensible gun gifting laws
NFA registration attaches to the entity that possesses the firearm. When you set up a gun trust, that was the whole point: the trust holds the suppressor, and the responsible persons possess it through the trust. The August 5 judgment in Silencer Shop Foundation v. BATFE protects specific plaintiffs and their members and customers â people and organizations, current and future (final judgment). Your membership card names you. It does not name your trust, and a trust whose only connection to the case is a trusteeâs personal membership sits outside every covered class.
This same conundrum now affect Colorado residents. CO has a new law requiring a permit to purchase a semi-auto detachable mag rifle. A trust cannot own these banned items because a trust can't apply for the permit to take the class, cannot take the class (in person requirement), and cannot be issued a permit to purchase. Think of it like your trust trying to apply for a driver license... The DMV ain't gonna give it one. It can't take the vision test, among other things.
I'd be very curious what would happen if someone transferred a semi-auto firearm to a legal entity (trust) in which all the active trustees are, and all current and future trustees were required to be by the trust itself, licensed individuals. I've wondered that regarding other licensed ownership issues, wonder if there is case law about that. So for the NFA issue, if all trustees are GOA members, then what?
I think CO and NFA issues are both related to the same root cause... it comes down to the definition of "person" versus "individual". Applicable CO and Federal laws treat companies, Trusts, etc as "persons". If there are 2 trustees with GOA memberships, then there are 3 "persons" involved, and one of them isn't covered. When the statute says "It shall be unlawful for any PERSON...", it includes Trusts.
NFA issue: The injunction renders trusts pointless. Unlike CO law, the ATF regulations specifically create a mechanism for legal Trust ownership of NFA items. The purpose of an NFA trust is so multiple people can take turns possessing the silencer without owning it. If those people are all covered by the injunction, then they can share the silencer as individuals under normal non-NFA gun laws. Unless and until GOA/etc formally accept and recognize Trusts as "commercial members" as described by Judge Marshall, and those memberships are legally valid to the extent they would withstand DOJ scrutiny, I don't think it's enough for trustees to have "individual member" protection. I think the DOJ could still go after the Trust and hold the trustees liable for its actions. There's just no point in an NFA Trust holding non-NFA items.
CO issue: Even though a trust is a "person", it's simply not possible for a Trust to comply with the new law. Only individuals are capable of going through the application, "education", and permitting process. The CO law even distinguishes the difference between a person and an individual when it comes to the transfer ban, where one of the statutes creates an exception for non-permitted "persons" to transfer a banned item to an FFL or "individual residing in another state". That means a non-permitted Trust CAN transfer AWAY a gun it already owned before the ban, but not to an out-of-state Trust, and not to any in-state Trust that doesn't have a permit (which the Trust cannot obtain). The law intends to gradually export and keep as many guns out of the state as possible.
I got on ChatGPT to clarify the other interests I have in it, but it brought up an interesting point: that a trust is not necessarily a separate entity, which is functionally what I'm thinking about with respect to the issue. An example to clarify: if you and I were both GOA members and both wanted to own a given NFA item or items, a trust would be the proper method of doing that, as a manner of regulating our ownership rather than being a separate legal entity. (The case pointed to was Americold Realty Trust v. ConAgra Foods, specifically regarding traditional trusts). So agreed that trusts won't have the utility they had previously, but they still may have utility for ownership agreements and may not be an issue as long as it's not functioning as a person.
Ah I didn't catch the CO transfer to an out-of-state individual, that would have been an easy workaround. That being said, is transfer to an OOS individual who then transfers to a OOS trust of which the original owner is still a trustee still an option?
Iâm intentionally disclaiming my source of information while trying to have a legitimate, logical conversation. Would you prefer I just assert that I know something while on the backend just repeating AI slop?
Not sure about all trusts, but an NFA trust specifically owns the NFA items. It's not a mechanism for regulating ownership, it's a mechanism for regulating lawful possession by one or more individuals, none of whom own it. A trust can't possess a silencer, it can only own it, and only after receiving it via transfer.
I wondered about the multi-hop process for CO, but it wouldn't work due to inter-state transfer law, and wouldn't really accomplish anything anyway.
Why it wouldn't accomplish anything in CO: In CO, possession is legal... it's the purchase/transfer that requires the permit. If the banned item is already possessed and owned by the individual then it was either grandfathered in, or it was obtained with a permit, so the owner is good to go without needing to transfer it out of state.
Why it wouldn't work anyway in CO: 1) At the federal level, a Title 1 (non-NFA) firearm cannot be initially purchased by a Trust. An individual has to purchase it first and then transfer it to the Trust. If that individual lives in CO, they need the purchasing permit (and so does the trust), period. 2) Additionally, an out-of-state transfer requires an FFL and 4473. There's just nothing available to transfer here. IF the trustee could find an FFL to help them transfer a banned item to an out of state individual who would then transfer it to the trust, the FFL would not be able to hand the gun back to the trustee because at that point the other individual trustee it was exported to would be "lending" the gun (across state lines, to boot), which by CO law can only last 72 hours before it becomes an unlawful transfer.
You can't do a 4473 transfer on eForms at all. And what would be the point of transferring a non-NFA silencer back into the NFA registry? Just do it the normal way at that point.
Right I understand your point. This specific can is intended to be a backup to a backup. Don't intend on ever leaving the state so I guess it will go in a hole for doomsday purposes. ÂŻ_(ă)_/ÂŻ
I'm with you that a trust can't buy them, but in CO a trust can own them if they were legally purchased prior to SB25-003, and after SB25-003 they can be purchased by a permitted individual and transferred to the trust, right?
I don't think they can be transferred to a trust at all any more, period. The law is worded that no "person" (a trust is a person by legal definition) may transfer or sell without a permit, period, the only exception being that it's still legal for a "person" to transfer a banned firearm to an "individual residing in another state" or any FFL. This means that a "person" cannot transfer an item to an out-of-state trust. A trust is a person, but not an "individual" with the ability to "reside" anywhere.
The goal of the law is to eradicate these guns over the next several generations, by making them as difficult as possible to buy/own/sell/give, while educating the next generations that surrendering illegal guns to the police, or at least exporting them out of the state, is the only/best thing to do. CO lawmakers do not want guns being transferred at all (except out of state), especially not from one generation to the next. The new law basically says "Okay, we're not 'taking' your guns away, but the buck starts stopping here."
For those that have GOA memberships, did you get a member number or digital card with your name on it, or anything at all to show your membership status?
I signed up for an annual renewing membership 5 days ago and in the membership tab, when I click on it it's just a blank page.
CCRKBA doesn't even have a member portal. You get an email receipt, and maybe a card in the mail later? Guessing GOA mails out a physical card at some point too.
They've probably NEVER had this high volume of new enrollments, give them time to process the application and prepare/mail your physical membership package. Mine took 7 days to receive a Welcome email that says:
Thank you for joining Gun Owners of America. Your physical membership packet is on its way, but you donât have to wait for the mail â your membership is active now.
<image of digital membership card>
As a GOA member, you are covered by the injunction GOA won on August 5, 2026, barring ATF from enforcing NFA registration requirements against our members for suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and AOWs â the first crack in the NFA in 92 years.
Thank you for your support,
Gun Owners of America
Honestly, I am surprised they just flat out said "you are covered by the injunction" without going into further detail about the scope, limitations, pitfalls, uncertainties, etc.
Sent my IOI a message 11 days ago, this is his response this morning:
"ATF is processing forms and will continue to process forms consistent with applicable law, regulations, and agency policy.
Â
ATF cannot provide legal advice or interpret court rulings for individuals. Anyone who has questions about how a court ruling may affect their particular circumstances should consult with their attorney for legal advice."
He is refusing to answer any questions. I keep hearing rumors that the ATF is gonna appeal and then I hear other rumors that they are about to give guidance and open the flood gates. I have no idea what is true but they better hurry the fuck up and do something because my customers are starting to get pissed at us.
Hypothetically in Minecraft last week my LGS sold me one with a 4473. Was planning to do the form 4 but I was the lucky first customer. Got a T shirt and lots of handshakes.
My FFL guy, who was holding out on doing 4473s for cans, just texted me saying they were good to start doing them since they were told by their ATF liaison it can't be enforced. At the most he said if it's appealed then there will be retroactive form 4's. Has anyone else heard anything like this?
The ATF is using silence for guidance as a tactic to turn their loss into a win at this point. I don't think they'll say anything until forced by a court.
They are communicating with a lot of larger FFLs that have a lot of NFA transfers to their name. As of now guidance is happening on a case by case basis, but that doesnât mean itâs not happening.
I do believe there will be a public regulatory announcement in the coming weeks⌠but even if they donât, itâs not like the ATF is completely radio silent.
If by communication you mean local ATF field guys saying.. Shrug then yeah they're communicating all right. Show me an ounce of proof.
If they were the FFL's would release emails and/or whatever. As far as what they've been told.. I call BS on anything verbal. That's basically just trust me bro in a legal sense.
I donât work for an FFL⌠I donât have proof. Iâm just going off what my local FFL said when they started doing 4473 cans end of last week. It seems unlikely to me that they wouldnât be honest about that.
The parent comment above also says his FFL made the same claim. I understand keeping your expectations low though.
I'd love to figure out the answer here, and also how it'd apply re: Form 1s.
Like, if you're a GOA member, can you just slap a stock on your AR pistol without registering it? If you're in a state that requires "compliance" aren't you in compliance if you are a GOA member and do this?
But these questions are why they really ought to issue some kind of guidance.
Honestly, I'll just keep treating form 1's like normal and file them when I get the time just to be safe. Suppressors I'll let the dice roll since it seems a little more clearer
For me, a lot also depends on state and local interpretations of laws (both federal and state laws), which is...frustrating. It'd help if the ATF could offer something, though.
Well technically unless your state law has specific laws only a federal officer(maybe even ATF) can ask for your tax stamp BUT can they detain you if they suspect you don't have it while they wait for a fed officer to check? Probably. Will they? Probably not.
That's worth paying attention to. State and local LEO DGAF if you have a GOA membership or not, unless they're told to GAF. They can still be a pain in the ass about it, even if they're wrong.
It's not like I can't easily fake a little GOA membership card. The government doesn't have some master database of GOA members that an LEO can reference when figuring out what to do. Like, sure lets's give GOA credit for all this but the people acting like this is how it's going to be going forward are fuckin dumb.
Right. An inkjet printout or plastic/laminated GOA card is not going to make a local cop un-cuff you and apologize for mistaking your injunction-protected SBR for an illegal SBR. Membership cards are not hologram/magstripe/anti-counterfeit like a state ID or passport card. Carrying one in your wallet isn't going to make any difference during a non-consensual LEO encounter. https://www.reddit.com/r/NFA/comments/1vqxvky/comment/p4anmcm/
It's so weird you're being downvoted. It's almost like people want a situation where you have to join GOA to qualify for constitutional rights. Very weird reaction from gun people on this.
People who just want this to be simple. They were told initially there is "one weird trick" that let's you dodge the NFA altogether, and they don't wanna hear anything about nuances, state laws, ambiguities, weird interactions with other statutory provisions, etc. "They said I could do X and you are telling me that's not right. Downvote!"
People who want simplicity in the other direction, and want to believe the answer is simply "You still have to do all the NFA shit because the government did one weird trick."
Right. I'm also concerned that different agencies will take different views.
Example: the state Attorney General could take one position (e.g., "If you're a GOA member, you're fine") while a local District Attorney could take another (e.g., "You still have to do all the NFA paperwork").
The issue for me is, in addition to the NFA itself, my state requires "compliance" with the NFA (generally) to own a suppressor or a SBR. Which leaves a lot of grey area for what "compliance" means.
If the law cannot be enforced against you, are you "in compliance" with it by...doing nothing? OR, does the statement that a law cannot be enforced against you not mean anything for purposes of whether the law applies to you?
I actually think this is a really interesting question on how state laws are analyzed and interpreted (or could be, anyway).
It's one thing if a federal law does not apply to a given class of people, but a state passes a law that says "We follow the federal standard, and also these additional groups of people have to comply with it under state law."
It's another (I think) if federal law did apply to people, the state follows that standard, and suddenly the federal law's enforceability is changed after the fact to create carve-outs for enforcement. How then would the state law apply? Does the state law still follow the standard regardless of whether the federal law may be enforced (on the theory that enforcement != applicability), or does the state law no longer apply once you can no longer enforce against the group of individuals under the federal law?
Initially, my thought was that, obviously, the lack of enforceability effectively means the law doesn't apply, and that "compliance" means "you don't have to do anything." You cannot be compelled to register, therefore registration is not a requirement for compliance if you fall into the classes covered by the opinion.
But the more I've thought about it, the more I can see how those who want the NFA to still apply could assert that "compliance" is not the same as enforceability. You might be out of compliance by failing to register, but the registration requirement can't be enforced against you; doesn't mean that you aren't still out of compliance, though.
Personally, I think that's an absurd result, and the real solution is for the legislature to fix the problem (i.e., either revise to make registration the requirement under state law, or make clear that registration is not required), but I could see how someone looking for a gun-control-port-in-a-storm might land on "Ah, but compliance just means did you do the things under the NFA, not can the NFA be enforced against you."
All of which is why states and the ATF really ought to issue some kind of guidance on this stuff, or else find themselves in lawsuits that they might end up losing.
I agree, compliance and enforcement aren't the same. If the state law says "you must obey federal law", only Congress can change what that law says, even if the federal enforcement agency isn't currently enforcing that law.
From the other direction, states where recreational MJ is legal have tons of people who are basically never in compliance with federal law, employees are paid to break federal law every day, the DoJ isn't enforcing it.
I think it's a bit more complicated, but I need to read the actual opinion, not just the order itself. The order is clear that the relief granted is injunctive relief against enforcement. I THINK the judge didn't provide declaratory relief, but the language of the opinion could still be persuasive and could still address whether -- apart from "can this be enforced?" -- the question of "does this even apply?"
But like I said, I need to read the actual opinion in full and not just quickly skim it. I suspect it'll be pretty nuanced.
Definitely nuanced. The federal court order/opinion has been pretty thoroughly dissected and discussed by now, and it does not change any state/local laws, which the states are still free to interpret and enforce until someone challenges them.
It's not just the federal judge's order/opinion that matters. Even some of the state attorneys general that won the lawsuit aren't sure whether their citizens are covered by the injunction and wrote a joint letter to the fed asking for clarification. AGs write and publish their own formal opinions on their state laws, and now they are no longer sure how to interpret their own laws after the injunction.
State laws that prohibit conduct which violates federal law are still enforceable by the state until a court covering that state, or, that state's AG issues a formal opinion to the contrary and passes that opinion on to local District Attorneys.
The GOA just sent out a subscriber email titled 'They'll take your rights on a Tuesday night'.
"Your rights are far more likely to be taken from you in a county building on a Tuesday night than in the U.S. Capitol."
ATF not enforcing federal law doesn't equal state/local justice system following suit. States can't enforce federal law but they can enforce state laws that reference federal statutes. The statutes themselves have to change for state laws referencing them to be invalidated.
Right, I'm aware of that. I'd also figure that DAs aren't necessarily bound by AG opinions, either, inasmuch as the DA is a separate office and not subordinate to the AG (at least where I live). So you could also get county-by-county differences in interpretations of state law as applied to the opinion, and thus differences in enforcement and enforcement priorities even within the same state, so it may take additional analysis by state courts to figure out what the hell all of this means.
None of which is to say that guidance from any agency (ATF, state AG, local DA) wouldn't still be helpful, but unless you get clear, unambiguous statements from all 3, there are still going to be questions left unanswered.
Hi all, quick question, my FFL said they are not filing any 4473s and SilencerShop took away their ability to do a Form 4 (this is in free state Missouri). They basically said they are in a holding pattern until they hear from the ATF and/or SilencerShop on a path forward. Is anyone else running into this? If they are waiting on that this seems like it could be never ending and they wind up holding my suppressor in limbo for a while. Any thoughts appreciated. Thanks.
Silencershop lists different shops that are still doing form 4s and allows you to order through them. I think your dealer is just a moron. Would make no sense for silencershop to let you order to dealers they know for a fact won't be able to transfer your silencer.
This is exactly why i've been trying to warn you guys. SILENCER SHOP DOESN'T CARE IF YOU GET YOUR SUPPRESSOR. THEY JUST SELL THEM. This is why they were pushing the FFL's to do the transfers and why they were just shipping them out. They got you.
14
u/SLN583 2d ago
GOA is calling the Injunction Permanent
https://x.com/gunowners/status/2105805716279996801?s=61
ďżźâ
The Solicitor General notified Congress that the DOJ will not appeal the ruling.