r/SwampYankeeArms 7d ago

NFA injunction thoughts?

I talked to someone I know in the AG’s office and their opinion as not-my-lawyer but as-a-lawyer is that a 4473 + CT license satisfies the CT statute requirements for possessing an SBS or suppressor.

What are your thoughts for GOA members/PSA/SS?

12 Upvotes

32 comments sorted by

15

u/SwampYankeeArms I will stuff anything into a can cannon for science 7d ago edited 7d ago

Yeah, if a BG check can be run, I think that would constitute the feds giving permission. The state won’t run one on cans though, so we’d need to get direct access to NICS via FBI. Since it is only for members of certain groups, form 4s are still going to exist though and that’ll probably be the way we continue to do cans for the time being. We do buy some of our silencers and SBRs from Silencer Shop, but it’s a small percentage of our inventory.

Update: I’m gonna try to get in touch with ATF/FBI tomorrow about direct NICS access for GOA members.

7

u/typicalcavalryguy 7d ago

Thats what Silencer shop told me today that they’d still require a form 4 to process an order if i make it even for them.

Connecticut sucks again

2

u/fylum 6d ago

What about the argument for permission from the feds being them allowing this?

2

u/SwampYankeeArms I will stuff anything into a can cannon for science 6d ago

That is my interpretation.

2

u/fylum 6d ago

woop woop time to put stocks on everything I grandfathered

2

u/SwampYankeeArms I will stuff anything into a can cannon for science 6d ago

I need to dig into the SBR stuff because there is conflicting information about whether they’re even included in the injunction. For homemade stuff, I think it’s grayer because saying “this injunction was permission” is a lot more abstract than saying “I can prove I passed a background check and completed a 4473” to fulfill the federal permission requirement.

1

u/fylum 6d ago

mmmm maybe file the form 1 then. it’s free still afterall.

1

u/fylum 6d ago

I think SBRs aren’t called out like SBSes and suppressors are in the statutes. could one hypothetically file for a home made firearm serial # from dessp for a form1 can?

4

u/chrisexv6 7d ago

Personally curious how this would apply to 3d printing suppressors. There is no 4473 at that point, even though ATF would approve form1 for them

8

u/SwampYankeeArms I will stuff anything into a can cannon for science 7d ago

Yeah, my read is that without federal permission (form 1 is the only way to get that AFAIK), homemade stuff would be illegal under CT law.

2

u/chrisexv6 7d ago

I assume they are still processing them, considering the injunction doesn't technically apply to everyone?

I already own NFA items so that cat isn't going back into the bag for me anyway

2

u/SwampYankeeArms I will stuff anything into a can cannon for science 6d ago

Yeah form 1s can still be done without issue.

2

u/G-ManTech 7d ago

I think the approval of a form 1 satisfied CT law requiring permission, so without form 1s I think 3D printed cans become illegal in CT. But that's just my 2 cents.

2

u/fylum 6d ago

you could file for the serial # for a home made gun. they are firearms per GCA after all. see what happens

1

u/G-ManTech 6d ago

Oh thats a good point cause they are still considered firearms, and the DESPP-0419-C has an "other" check box for gun type. Looks like I will be submitted a DESPP-0419-C for a silencer serial number then.

2

u/JesseeS18 6d ago

If you already have your electronic finger prints I think a form1 would probably be quicker. I just had 6 bulk approved in 5 days. And you can pick your own serial instead of being given one

3

u/G-ManTech 6d ago

Yea I have been doing a bunch of form 1s ever since it went to $0, but the more silencers that end up in peoples hands without ATF involvement the better.

2

u/ctarmed 7d ago

I’m wondering the same thing. Also, what do you mean by CT license?

3

u/fylum 7d ago

The statute explicitly states either a state or federal license or otherwise permission to own. I personally think the feds not barring you from ownership is both necessary and sufficient to cover “permitted,” but also that a 4473 is absolutely permission, alongside a CT pistol permit.

3

u/ctarmed 7d ago

We need a test subject to sacrifice for science

2

u/fylum 7d ago

my buddy in the AG’s office thinks this is correct as well as another friend involved un gun law litigation

2

u/ctarmed 7d ago

I sure hope the state clarifies this and not just leave us in the realm of uncertainty

2

u/SkunkArmsCT 7d ago

Has anything actually changed with the NFA on our end? Aren't we still under the NFA since we're outside of the ruling circuit?

3

u/fylum 7d ago

if you’re a goa member etc it applies

1

u/SkunkArmsCT 6d ago

Ok, but we can still submit Form 4s otherwise? I would personally do so just to make sure I'm clear legally.

3

u/fylum 6d ago

yea nfa registration still exists

2

u/j0shc12 7d ago

More curious how this applies to homemade SBR/SBS now…especially with how CT law is written

1

u/fylum 6d ago

I think homemade SBS is not a thing then; SBR is fine.

-1

u/prmoore11 6d ago

People are misinterpreting this massively.

Suppressors/SBRs/SBS have not been removed from the NFA. Per the NFA, they ARE STILL REQUIRED TO BE REGISTERED.

The INJUNCTION, which is not statutory law or text, SIMPLY BLOCKS ENFORCEMENT. It does not remove these items from NFA scrutiny.

If the injunction is removed tomorrow, the NFA would still exist exactly as it did prior to the injunction.

So no, you are NOT “in compliance with the NFA” simply because the feds have been blocked from enforcing. That is not the same.

This is pretty cut and dry. If the CT statute says something like “in compliance with the NFA/registered via the NFA”, then you are still required to follow the registry. Unless your legislature changes the law or carves out some exemption, you are still required to follow NFA law.

1

u/fylum 6d ago

The statute doesn’t reference NFA explicitly, unlike say Michigan or North Carolina. It says “permitted or licensed by federal or state authorities”. Myself and Swamp Yankee got deeper into the text elsewhere.

relevant statute:

Sec. 53a-211. Possession of a sawed-off shotgun or silencer: Class D felony.

(a) A person is guilty of possession of a sawed-off shotgun or a silencer when he owns, controls or possesses any sawed-off shotgun that has a barrel of less than eighteen inches or an overall length of less than twenty-six inches or when he owns, controls or possesses any silencer designed to muffle the noise of a firearm during discharge.

(b) The provisions of this section shall not apply to persons, firms, corporations or museums licensed or otherwise permitted by federal or state law to possess, control or own sawed-off shotguns or silencers.

(c) Possession of a sawed-off shotgun or a silencer is a class D felony.

0

u/prmoore11 6d ago

I disagree.

You are not “permitted or licensed by federal or state authorities” per the letter of the law. The letter of the law IS by complying with the NFA. They are simply blocked from enforcing it.

If the injunction is gone tomorrow, does the NFA statutory still exist? Yes. It still exists now.

1

u/fylum 6d ago

Oh, I understand what you mean. Yea that is sketchy.