Started By
Message

re: Judge rules that major portions of the National Firearms Act are unconstitutional

Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:33 pm to
Posted by bbvdd
Memphis, TN
Member since Jun 2009
29246 posts
Posted on 8/27/26 at 1:33 pm to
quote:

I'm sure their lawyers will be taking their time trying to figure out the boundary terms of this decision, they still have until mid-October to appeal too.


Local gun store here had a post saying that they have been in talks with the ATF and they are thinking that they will indeed appeal the ruling.
Posted by bayoudude
Member since Dec 2007
25996 posts
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:03 pm to
quote:

When a massive barrier to entry is eliminated, by the nature of basic economics, more competition will enter the market and apply downward pricing pressure.


I’m sure Hi-point level of quality cans will be available in short order. I’m itching to get a can for every threaded barrel I own
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
20288 posts
Posted on 8/27/26 at 2:05 pm to
quote:

they are thinking that they will indeed appeal the ruling.


They pretty much have too, this regulatory hole that seems to have no real edge must be a nightmare for the ATF and DoJ. Think the legal calculus in play is significant, they know the chance of reversing this decision is low, so do they go for broke or try to drag this out and hope for a future administration will shift things?
Posted by X123F45
Dictated not Read
Member since Apr 2015
30469 posts
Posted on 8/27/26 at 4:51 pm to
quote:

I see $200 cans popping


Amazon dropped off everything this morning. 60ish bucks
Posted by bamarep
Member since Nov 2013
52774 posts
Posted on 8/27/26 at 5:04 pm to
quote:

they are thinking that they will indeed appeal the ruling.



Did they not miss the deadline to appeal? I though th ey had 7-10 days.
Posted by HeadSlash
TEAM LIVE BADASS - St. GEORGE
Member since Aug 2006
57243 posts
Posted on 8/27/26 at 6:17 pm to
Actually they have 60 days. Hurry up and wait. I'd like to see it taken to the Supreme Court, I don't like the idea of an ANTI-GUN administration trying to retaliate.
Posted by bayoudude
Member since Dec 2007
25996 posts
Posted on 8/27/26 at 8:56 pm to
I agree we need a push to get as much done for 2A rights as we can.
Posted by Beaux Man
Satsuma, AL
Member since May 2020
180 posts
Posted on 8/30/26 at 9:31 am to
Local gun store down here in West Mobile, Stone Arms just announced that they will begin selling suppressors on a from 4473 only. Starting Monday the 31st when they open. Bet there will be a line out the door.

Anybody else seen any places doing it locally to them?
Posted by GRTiger
On a roof eating alligator pie
Member since Dec 2008
72303 posts
Posted on 8/30/26 at 1:57 pm to
A couple in Houston are YOLO'ing. God bless em.
Posted by bayoudude
Member since Dec 2007
25996 posts
Posted on 8/30/26 at 3:33 pm to
Besides a photo and fingerprints what more does the Nfa process do that isn’t captured by a 4473?
Posted by Junky
Louisiana
Member since Oct 2005
9392 posts
Posted on 8/30/26 at 7:54 pm to
It’s all tiring. Just tell me when I can do what I want.
Posted by jdavid1
Member since Jan 2014
2705 posts
Posted on 10/1/26 at 12:29 pm to
Update to this thread, Brothers LA Arms in Hammond just posted they will be selling suppressors on 4473 to qualifying customers. I assume you need to be a member of GOA.
Posted by bbvdd
Memphis, TN
Member since Jun 2009
29246 posts
Posted on 10/1/26 at 12:58 pm to
quote:

Besides a photo and fingerprints what more does the Nfa process do that isn’t captured by a 4473?


Federal registration of the the silencer.

"enhanced" back ground check whatever that means.
Posted by Seth Bullock
Member since Nov 2024
518 posts
Posted on 10/9/26 at 2:20 pm to
Hot off the press. ATF update

LINK
Posted by DownshiftAndFloorIt
Here
Member since Jan 2011
73523 posts
Posted on 10/9/26 at 2:42 pm to
quote:

Although the district court’s injunction applies only to plaintiffs and certain other specified
persons, the Department has determined to exercise its enforcement discretion to create greater
uniformity, consistent with the Attorney General’s statement today. Consequently, effective
October 9, 2026, ATF will no longer require individuals to seek ATF approval under the NFA
before making or transferring short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and “any
other weapon[s]” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e). ATF will also no longer require such items
to be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. These policies apply
uniformly to anyone otherwise subject to these requirements, not just to the plaintiffs in the
litigation.
ATF will continue to administer the NFA on a voluntary basis. ATF will accept Form 1
applications to make or register these firearms and devices by those making such items. ATF
will also accept Form 3 or Form 4 applications to transfer or register such items. Manufacturers
are allowed to report the manufacture of these items on a Form 2.
Interested parties, however, should note five limits of this change in enforcement policy. First,
the NFA still imposes special (occupational) taxes on any person engaged in the business of
manufacturing, importing, or dealing in all NFA firearms and devices, including short-barreled
rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and “any other weapon[s]” as defined in 26 U.S.C.
§ 5845(e). The district court’s injunction does not affect these taxes. Consequently, those
engaged in the business must continue to pay applicable taxes on their businesses.
Second, the injunction does not disturb the NFA’s application to machineguns and destructive
devices. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act maintained the $200 tax on such items. Consequently,
all NFA provisions still apply to machineguns and destructive devices.
Third, the district court did not enjoin any provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). The
GCA’s definition of “firearms” includes all firearms and suppressors and thus extends to short-
barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and “any other weapon[s].” Because these
NFA firearms and devices are statutory “firearms” under the GCA, they may not be possessed by
prohibited persons, and all recordkeeping and background check requirements under the GCA
remain in place. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(3); id. § 922(d), (g), (n), (t); id. § 923(g); 27
C.F.R. § 478.121, et seq.
Fourth, the district court did not enjoin the GCA’s restrictions on the transportation and sale of
short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4), (b)(4). Individuals
transporting short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns should continue to file Form 20s,
even if the firearms are not registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
ATF is working as quickly as possible to issue new regulations to authorize federal firearms
1 See Letter from Congressman Andrew S. Clyde, et al., to Attorney General Todd Blanche, Aug. 11, 2026, https://
clyde.house.gov/uploadedfiles/clyde_blancheletter_nfaruling_aug26.pdf. Office of the Director
licensees to transfer short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns under the GCA. In the
interim, ATF will not enforce the provisions in 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4).
Fifth, the district court’s injunction and the enforcement policy announced by this Open Letter
do not affect state or local laws that govern NFA weapons. Most states have general criminal
prohibitions on the possession of some or all NFA items. These laws often have exceptions for
those NFA items possessed in compliance with or registered under federal law. Individuals,
including dealers, should consult their local law enforcement authorities or seek legal advice for
guidance on whether unregistered NFA items are lawful in their jurisdictions. Because
interpretations of state law may vary, local authorities should also be contacted, or other advice
sought, before transporting an unregistered NFA item into or through another jurisdiction.
Additionally, it is unclear whether state courts will apply the safe harbor created by 18 U.S.C.
§ 926A to interstate transportation of unregistered NFA items. Consequently, individuals should
exercise caution before transporting unregistered NFA items through states in which such items
are prohibited by law, even if the items are not prohibited in the originating and destination
states. The GCA also continues to prohibit federal firearm licensees from transferring statutory
firearms in violation of state or local law. 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(2). The GCA defines “firearm” to
include all NFA items for which Congress eliminated the tax, including silencers. 18 U.S.C. §
921(a)(3).
Questions pertaining to this Open Letter should be directed toward ATF’s Firearms Indu


Ill leave the actual interpretation of this to our resident scumbags (lawyers) but this reads like a big giant to me??????
This post was edited on 10/9/26 at 2:45 pm
Posted by HoboDickCheese
The overpass
Member since Sep 2020
14515 posts
Posted on 10/9/26 at 2:49 pm to
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
20288 posts
Posted on 10/9/26 at 2:59 pm to
All the pearl clutchers will still argue this but I SBR'd my pistol knowing this would be the scope of the ATF's guidance, now I'm looking into a can setup.
Posted by rltiger
Metairie
Member since Oct 2004
2952 posts
Posted on 10/9/26 at 3:04 pm to
Throw it all out before CMP starts cutting/welding up those M14s.
Posted by DownshiftAndFloorIt
Here
Member since Jan 2011
73523 posts
Posted on 10/9/26 at 3:06 pm to
If i were buying one today ill probably still do form 4 and a stamp just in case it becomes a political football but man this is awesome regardless
Posted by LoneStarTiger
Lone Star State
Member since Aug 2004
16581 posts
Posted on 10/9/26 at 5:41 pm to
Let’s

fricking

Go!

Time to go buy a can for my SBR
first pageprev pagePage 8 of 10Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

Facebook•X•Instagram