WIN!
- Thread starter crapshoot
- Start date
bohunr
Well-known member
try this, its easier than listening to that guy. i dont want a show, i want the news. sounds like we can buy suppressors over the counter if this ruling stands
www.nraila.org
In another major victory for the National Rifle Association and law-abiding gun owners, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas today held that the National Firearms Act’s registration and approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns exceed Congress’s constitutional authority after Congress eliminated the NFA’s transfer and making taxes on those arms.
The court concluded that Congress enacted the NFA as an exercise of its taxing power and that the statute’s extensive regulatory requirements—including registration, applications, ATF approval, fingerprinting, and related criminal penalties—were constitutionally permissible only because they aided the collection of the NFA’s taxes. The court held that once Congress eliminated the transfer and making taxes for suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs last year in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the constitutional foundation for those regulatory provisions disappeared.
The court rejected the government’s argument that the remaining regulations could instead be justified under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, explaining that Congress enacted the challenged provisions solely pursuant to its taxing authority. The court therefore held the challenged provisions unconstitutional on Article I enumerated-powers grounds and declined to reach the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims.
The Court stayed the effect of the Final Judgment for seven days to allow the government an opportunity to seek relief from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals if it so desires.
NRA-ILA | Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration Requirements for Suppressors, Short-Barreled Rifles, and Short-Barreled Shotguns in NRA Case
In another major victory for the National Rifle Association and law-abiding gun owners, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas today held that the National Firearms Act’s registration and approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled...
www.nraila.org
In another major victory for the National Rifle Association and law-abiding gun owners, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas today held that the National Firearms Act’s registration and approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns exceed Congress’s constitutional authority after Congress eliminated the NFA’s transfer and making taxes on those arms.
The court concluded that Congress enacted the NFA as an exercise of its taxing power and that the statute’s extensive regulatory requirements—including registration, applications, ATF approval, fingerprinting, and related criminal penalties—were constitutionally permissible only because they aided the collection of the NFA’s taxes. The court held that once Congress eliminated the transfer and making taxes for suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs last year in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the constitutional foundation for those regulatory provisions disappeared.
The court rejected the government’s argument that the remaining regulations could instead be justified under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, explaining that Congress enacted the challenged provisions solely pursuant to its taxing authority. The court therefore held the challenged provisions unconstitutional on Article I enumerated-powers grounds and declined to reach the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims.
The Court stayed the effect of the Final Judgment for seven days to allow the government an opportunity to seek relief from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals if it so desires.
Sgt_Mike
Well-known member
yeah which means IF they don't file it would be like 14 days (just pulling a number guys) after the seven day wait before using a silencer shop affiliated dealer using a 4473. It will be interesting at the least (note I only used silencer shop for a example not sure of all the plaintiffs). Why I think 14 days after the seven day period ? ATF would have to modify e-forms and remove all the suppressors serial number that Silencer shop has in inventory. It will be muddy for sure (I'm leaning this way because I just can't see ATF giving up the regulatory authority easily)
Although like many on here I'm sure got the same email I did from silencer shop.
That has been honestly the only claim (taxes) that they have used in the past to defend the rulings.
Last edited:
Sprinkman
Well-known member
As well, this ruling does not apply to everyone. It only applies to GOA members and those in the States that joined in the lawsuit.
I think the states covered by this are West Virginia, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, Indiana, South Dakota, Kansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Montana, Alaska, Louisiana.
That's 15 states, which means that 35 states are not covered. I'm not sure I call this a win yet, but if it goes to the SCOTUS and they rule in favor than it's a win for all.
I think the states covered by this are West Virginia, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota, Indiana, South Dakota, Kansas, Georgia, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Montana, Alaska, Louisiana.
That's 15 states, which means that 35 states are not covered. I'm not sure I call this a win yet, but if it goes to the SCOTUS and they rule in favor than it's a win for all.
Widow maker 223
Well-known member
alf
Well-known member
For $25 bucks, I just went ahead & joined.
Widow maker 223
Well-known member
alf
Well-known member
I'd like to see someone comment on the Form1 aspect for SBR's and suppressors.
So they're eliminating the registration requirements, but now talking about the 4473's being required, which is still a back door registration. How does Joe Blow make a can on his lathe, and is expected by who and when to fill out a 4473 for him?
So they're eliminating the registration requirements, but now talking about the 4473's being required, which is still a back door registration. How does Joe Blow make a can on his lathe, and is expected by who and when to fill out a 4473 for him?
Sgt_Mike
Well-known member
Great question, and I don't have a true answer, so I attempted a spit ball at the topic this is the 6th attempt, I deleted the others.
My reasoning was
(1) it's moot till after the 13th. And if challenged then moot until it heard from a higher court.
(2) if unchallenged I'm sure the Plaintiffs will hammer the BAFTE for exact guidance (excluding the States that joined in, they won't care) . But GOA and the manufactures will.
I have a thought on the matter, but I'll hold it for now. As I really don't have enough evidence to blurt out what that thought is. (@bohunr is extremely close to that actual thought)
crapshoot
Well-known member
Ok, another question. My state is not listed and i am not a GOA memeber BUT i have purchased from PSA before. So since i have been a PSA patron, would this only apply to future "nfa" items purchased only from THEM in the future?
Edit: replaced member with patron.
Edit: replaced member with patron.
Last edited:
Sprinkman
Well-known member
If I understand what I have heard and read, PSA and other plaintiffs will still have to follow each and every states laws. So, if your state is good with the no form 4 ruling, you will be covered. If, however, your state says we don't care about no stinkin judges ruling, they still have to provide form 4.
If this doesn't go before the SCOTUS, it's gonna be the wild west as far as who is covered and who isn't.
My understanding may or may not be correct, but I think it is.
crapshoot
Well-known member
I'll probably be screwed. Here is a discussion regarding Nevada.
Sgt_Mike
Well-known member
I'm sitting here giggling has no one realized that Silencer Co is listed as a Plaintiff as well as PSA, Silencer Shop, B&T USA, Texas State Rifle Association (I'm sure I missed some here) under the umbrella of the "SSF" . The Co-plaintiffs is composed of GOA, GOF, FRAC, ASA, SAF, FPC, NRA, as well as 15 states which 13 of them are outside the 5th circuit, two was within the 5th circuit Louisiana and Texas, Mississippi did not join in although subject to the 5th circuit. None of the aforementioned is not to demean the Co-plaintiffs. I don't think many actually understand that the final ruling in the case was actually two cases ( SSF vs ATF and Jensen vs ATF) combined under using the same argument of the tax being zeroed out. It might surprise the daylight out of you WHOM is all involved in this case if you use their membership or products / Services
Very true they do.
But to point out Sprinkman's verbiage "If, however, your state says we don't care about no stinkin judges ruling, they still have to provide form 4.". ( I love that part I would and do sound the same way as he put it when I usually speak) That is actually those states that have within their state laws that lawful owner must provide proof of registration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR). Some other states simply have a wording of being in compliance with the NFA, not actual registration within the NFRTR requirement, just compliance. So with the ruling and the background check completed it "should" past muster in many states provided the plaintiff and co plaintiffs services/ products are utilized within the purchase. (your sales receipt becomes the ATF form 1 / 4 in essence providing compliance)
Arkansas I know has pretty much that wording of "compliance with the NFA". That said based on the 5th circuit ruling provided if I am a customer /and or member of the plaintiffs I SHOULD expect Arkansas to conduct it under the ruling (transfer on 4473). i.e. purchasing from B&T USA, Silencer Co, Silencer Shop, and / or member of GOA, GOF, TSRA, NRA to list a few.
If not a customer/member of one or more of the plaintiffs' yeah ATF Form 4 will be required here.
Now that doesn't mean that the AG of the state of Arkansas flip's and states full compliance meaning ATF Form 4 will be required. But AG's are political to the extreme, if the AG of Arkansas that did that, they wouldn't be AG or in any political office after doing so after their term. Provided the Governor (in my case Sarah Sanders) doesn't relieve them on the spot.
To Crapshoot's last post the last I checked Nevada (years ago so there maybe something I'm not aware of) closely mirrors Arkansas in the NFA world not exactly but sort of close enough. If there isn't a change passed then I think it would be close to what I think Arkansas will handle it. Then again maybe not IDK if not maybe a change in the AG and the legislature is the solution. or simply stop liberals at the border (sorry couldn't resist the humor, we get them too my friend)
I think I have stated on here this is a frail win, and why I say so is many go down this route with the 4473 all happy etc etc.
Then the seats change in the Federal Legislature now the tax is back on.... ohhh crap now it must be entered into the NFRTR and the new tax is due on each and every one of them... Simply because the ATF Form 1 / 4 isn't there which is a Tax receipt and proof of being entered into the NFRTR preventing collection at a later date.
This leads me to wonder if the best route for me is the actual ATF Form 4. Yeah I'm from the Reagan camp "Trust but verify".
Some stated that the DOJ won't file the appeal is what they heard. This could be true , and very true. As there isn't a tax collected they would be happy to reduce the processing cost especially without collecting a tax as it currently is.
It would make perfect sense to me if I was the U.S. AG NOT to file the appeal I could simply reduce my work force (contractors) a bit. As the vast majority of the applications are in the Suppressor, SBR, and SBS realm. Heck I would only have to handle MG's and DD's within the NFA branch.
The fact is none of us really know until the 12th/13th rolls around how this will be. We just have to wait, nothing wrong with the discussion, and it will impact us differently in each state. The intent wasn't to force a massive chain of events but to put a crack in the armor in the fight, while I state it's a frail win it still is a crack and a win. But it's not over by any means even if the DOJ/BATFE doesn't appeal. And the could very well suspect that we rest on our frail laurels, and not pursue precedence that has been set.
Agree, I have absolutely no freaking clue. Except to file the Form 1, personally I wouldn't feel comfortable unless I had the approval in hand .
Even if I was a NRA/GOA member using a PSA with a reduced barrel length. Or threading up a suppressor/baffle on the lathe. I could just see a ATF Agent implying it was prior to the ruling, and basically how could you prove that your was in compliance with the ruling and the law. Now if it was say a PSA SBR already made yeah and it doesn't apply to the form 1 aspect anyway. The barrel wouldn't trigger a 4473 but a lower would maybe that is the answer buy the lower do the background check save the sale receipt as proof of compliance (SBR)?? IDK
Or if PSA offered build kits in their suppressor line up? They as well as Silencer Co / Silencer shop do offer parts although not nfa item per se (yet) if they did offer say baffle stacks or tubes they would by ATF ruling trigger a 4473? which could be shipped to dealer, and then a 4473 could be done as ATF has held and convicted over those items as a suppressor?? Just spit balling as I type. The issue is what item or items would trigger a 4473 to be done in a form 1 build.
ETA I forgot to point out one thing while I deeply reference the 4473, none of us ever walks out of the shop with a copy of that form. It's kept at the dealer but we do walk out with a sale receipt listing the item so yeah that would be key thing to have from the FFL. So being clear I'm not saying you retain or obtain a copy of the 4473, many dealer will not provide it .
Last edited: