r/gunpolitics • u/Megalith70 • 26d ago
Trump Admin not appealing NFA ruling.
https://x.com/gunowners/status/2087723449372283239?s=46&t=hN6Lm0vFUB8KsGy1OlHZowThis is massive.
•
26d ago edited 18d ago
[deleted]
•
u/Megalith70 26d ago
Honestly, I’m not sure how it all works. If I understand it correctly, this is limited to the named plaintiffs but I’m not sure if it’s now nationwide. It does not impact state level bans.
•
u/ToastedSoup 26d ago
it's for registration (paying the tax and being on the NFA registry, doing the Form 1/Form 4) and it limited to the named plaintiffs and their customers
•
•
u/fender_blues 26d ago
Is the coverage on an individual or per item basis? I have two cans, one is from silencershop and the other is not.
•
u/SamAreAye 26d ago
Coverage is for transactions made wwith the company. Just join GOA for $25. It covers transactions made involving you.
•
u/bigbigdummie 25d ago
It won’t stand that way. We’ll soon get some kind of announcement from the ATF.
Suppressors are still “firearms” and require a 4473.
•
•
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie 26d ago
Current and future customers. As long as you buy something from silencer shop or one of the other named plaintiffs you are considered covered under the injunction.
•
u/SamAreAye 26d ago
Only for your business with them.
Just pay the $25 to join GOA, already.
•
u/ThePenultimateNinja 25d ago
Just pay the $25 to join GOA, already.
Right? It's the least we can do, considering what they have done for us.
•
u/witchouse 26d ago
Suppressors become a GCA item so 4473 for those. SBR/SBS/AOW are the 4473 items as well. PSA customers are included in the suit also.
•
26d ago edited 18d ago
[deleted]
•
u/gakflex 26d ago
A pretty cheap and easy way to just be sure would be to simply join GOA or FPC. A few bucks a month.
•
•
u/merc08 26d ago
Having to pay a company a subscription for our Rights is some straight up bullshit.
•
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie 26d ago
You don't even have to do that, you can just buy from one of the other names plaintiffs like PSA or Silencershop. And yeah it sucks that you can't just go build your own or whatever, but this is a massive step in the right direction that I never thought I would see in my lifetime.
•
u/Girafferage 26d ago
Sure is. It's wild that people consider this a win when the reality is just that - we still have to pay to have these rights. Even one cent is too much.
•
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie 26d ago
You don't have to pay any more than the cost of the actual item themselves as long as you buy from one of the named plaintiffs such as Silencer shop or PSA. And this is a massive win, if you told anyone knowledgeable in the gun space that the NFA would be struck down even this limited of a scope a year or two ago they would've laughed in your face. This is just the first domino to fall before the entire thing is struck down and removed.
•
u/evilblackdog 26d ago
I wonder if this whole thing will just cause them to drop the NFA entirely.
•
u/SamAreAye 26d ago
Seems likely. Only a matter of time before somebody sues for the same rights his neighbor has.
•
u/ThePenultimateNinja 25d ago
It's step 2 of a 3 step process. You're right that it is unfair, which opens up an opportunity for a lawsuit to address that.
If you don't want to wait for that lawsuit to happen, a GOA membership is $25 per year. You would also be doing your part to help fund the lawsuit.
•
u/QuinceDaPence 26d ago
This is how all of these start. Look at FRTs, same way, they started with a certain companies, then quickly expanded to everyone.
•
u/akenthusiast 26d ago
It's because of Trump v. CASA. An appellate court judge can't grant a universal injunction anymore
•
•
u/steelhelix 26d ago
A lawyer's interpretation of the ruling in this case doesn't imply that just because you bought something from them ever it would apply. It would indicate that if you chose to SBR the specific item you bought, it would be covered.
But it also means that PSA can sell suppressors/SBR/SBSes to anyone on a 4473 because they would also be new customers.
•
u/CaptainFirecrotch 26d ago
So I can put a stock on my krink now?
•
u/steelhelix 26d ago
Probably, but I'd wait to see what Washington Gun Law or Armed Attorneys reports as they're two lawyer channels I trust on the matter.
•
•
u/ThePenultimateNinja 25d ago
Not necessarily a bummer. Since suppressors are legally firearms, it means they fall under the protection of the Second Amendment. If they were just accessories, it would be much easier for states to ban them outright.
I know they are already banned in some states anyway, but there's a decent chance those bans will be overturned eventually.
•
•
•
u/De_Facto 26d ago
IIRC there are also Plaintiff states where if you reside in them this ruling also applies to you and FFL’s in your state. My state, South Carolina, is one of them.
•
•
u/OcSpeed 26d ago
How do we get this nationwide?
•
u/akenthusiast 26d ago
People in different circuits need to sue
•
u/hitemlow 26d ago
Someone will, considering the number of shops that will be unfairly disadvantaged by having to do Forms 1-4 vs the ones that don't, in addition of the hassle of determining customer eligibility for the exception.
•
u/BackToTheCottage 25d ago
Yeah I assume this defacto monopoly is gonna trigger a lot of gun shops suing to also get the opportunity to sell silencers.
•
u/specter491 26d ago
Buy from SS or join GOA. That's it.
•
u/Thee_Sinner 26d ago
Still restricted to 27 states that dont have their own bans that this doesnt overturn
•
•
u/afopatches 23d ago
That is not "nationwide". 27 states is not "nationwide".
•
u/specter491 23d ago
The injunction is nationwide but your state prohibits it unregistered NFA items. That's different
•
u/backfire_robin 25d ago
IMO ATF should have a new rule or regulation change regarding this through their rulemaking process to comply with the court judgement order. If so it may take several months to one year to make it into effect nationwide
•
u/alwaus 26d ago edited 26d ago
In 25 years we went from featureless, assualt weapon ban, 10 round limit magazines to suppressed, short barreled, giggle switched home built firearms.
•
u/BackToTheCottage 25d ago
Only took less than two terms of Trump.
•
u/EnterpriseDoorGunner 24d ago
So what you're saying is, in only 1.5 more Trump Terms we could get NFA and GCA fully repealed?
Where do I sign?
•
u/6680j 26d ago
California over here feeling left out
•
•
u/milochuisael 26d ago
East coast twin Massachusetts too
•
u/deathsythe 25d ago
And RI, don't forget about us.
•
u/milochuisael 25d ago
You guys were good until recently
•
u/deathsythe 25d ago
Literally less than 5 years to go from freedom minus NFA to no different from any other blue state.
•
•
u/masterkorey7 26d ago
What does this mean for SBR's long term? How long before we can throw a stock on our pistols and not be illegal?
•
u/steelhelix 26d ago
Best guess is that due to varying enforcement mechanisms and difficulties applying this to person A vs person B it will result in DOJ/ATF doing an APA rules change with the lawsuit as the basis to just stop enforcing it nationwide.
•
u/leedle1234 26d ago edited 26d ago
From a realistic standpoint it won't be practical for atf to enforce sbr, sbs, supressor laws outside of states with further restrictions on them regardless of the intricacies of "named plaintiffs". And if you look at the data and reporting over the years they basically haven't been whole heartedly going after sbr violations anymore ever since braces took off.
Just think of the thousands of regular joes with zero knowledge of the nfa slapping stocks on their cheap PSA AR "pistols", completely oblivious they were committing felonies. If ATF and LE were serious sbr arrests would have skyrocketed.
•
u/Megalith70 26d ago
I don’t know how it will work for home built SBRs. It’s going to take a bit for it all to settle out.
•
u/nico_juro 26d ago
So, can I just buy a suppresor now?
•
u/CraaZero 26d ago
As of an hour and two minutes ago, that's what SilencerShop promised to do in their letter
•
u/Hairy_Heart8917 25d ago
Well except for those 15 states where they still make you fill it out
•
u/CraaZero 25d ago
Because those states are cucked and I feel horrible for their citizens. When the government really wants to hate you, they'll let you know
•
u/ThePenultimateNinja 25d ago
I'm in WI. The gun laws are actually great here, but the wording of the suppressor law has caused a conflict with the injunction.
(c) Any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872.
The law was intended to be permissive - they are saying 'If it's ok with the federal government, it's ok with us'.
The problem is that they didn't take into account the possibility that there might one day be an injunction against those parts of the NFA.
It's just a technicality caused by an unfortunate wording in the law. I'm sure they will fix it relatively quickly.
•
•
u/texas_accountant_guy 23d ago
I'm in WI. The gun laws are actually great here, but the wording of the suppressor law has caused a conflict with the injunction.
(c) Any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872.
The law was intended to be permissive - they are saying 'If it's ok with the federal government, it's ok with us'.
The problem is that they didn't take into account the possibility that there might one day be an injunction against those parts of the NFA.
It's just a technicality caused by an unfortunate wording in the law. I'm sure they will fix it relatively quickly.
Arguments are being made, and will hopefully be accepted, that wording as you listed there will actually let you fall under this ruling.
"Complied with the licensing and registration requirements" = Court ruled those licensing and registration requirements don't apply to me, so I'm complying with them...
Colorado though is a hassle, as it apparently specifically calls for the issuance of a license or the tax stamp itself in the wording of it's law.
•
u/stopbotheringme1776 26d ago
I bet we’ll still see the ‘buh my bumpstocks” posts. There’s lots of problems with this admin, but objectively it’s the most pro-gun admin in history.
•
u/Megalith70 26d ago
I’ve already seen people bringing up bump stocks.
•
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/deathsythe 25d ago
Nuking most of this thread
Unrelated politics where politics do not need to be.
Celebrate the 2A win. Take your conspiracy theory or political nonsense to any number of the millions of other subs where you can karma farm that opinion.
•
25d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/deathsythe 25d ago
You're not going to get very far in life my friend if you see everything as that black and white.
You are bringing up unrelated topics in a 2A and GUNpolitics forum. Talk about that somewhere else. That's all.
We should ban you for civility with accusations like that, but I'm in a chipper mood because of this NFA victory.
•
•
•
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/WeHaveTheMeeps 26d ago
But also it’s not just bump stocks. Dude literally did a whole speech about taking away guns without due process.
•
u/floopyscoopy 25d ago
Maybe not IN HISTORY, late 1700s might have a word with you, but credit where it’s due
•
u/Time-Object5661 25d ago
To be fair it think it's a total shitshow in DC, and some good pro gun things have happened. Not going to complain though
•
u/apogeeman2 26d ago
You’re drunk.
•
u/WeHaveTheMeeps 26d ago
To be fair, we all are celebrating a win. Let em drink.
During the first Trump admin there were many good things he did that I can acknowledge despite not being a supporter. Gun rights were not one of them.
I think gun rights are the only thing moving in a somewhat decent direction during his second term.
•
u/jeropian-moth 26d ago
Agreed. Broken clock. It’s nice to see people in here actually being objective about his shit ass term while acknowledging this win.
•
u/WeHaveTheMeeps 26d ago
It is impossible to be purely good or purely bad.
And I really wish we’d remember that that’s ok.
Fuck during his first term he was overturning bad convictions for black grandmas.
I never was on the Trump bandwagon, but there were some times where I thought he was killin’ it.
Very few times… but they were there.
•
u/jeropian-moth 26d ago
I think he’s 99% bad this time which really isn’t okay. It’s just this 1% means a lot to me lol
•
u/WeHaveTheMeeps 26d ago
Strong agree.
Yet I think we can have our cake and eat it too.
I think we’re thrown crumbs on gun rights to keep the game going.
•
•
•
u/masterffl-com 26d ago
I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me an appeal would have likely pushed it to SCOTUS and a win there would have made it permanent; with no appeal, all it will take is a liberal congress to add the fee back, and we are back in the same place. And when they do, the $200 tax could go to $5k.
•
u/Megalith70 26d ago
A ruling from SCOTUS likely wouldn’t have been on the 2A either. It would be undone by reinstating the tax as well.
•
•
u/GWOSNUBVET 26d ago
So I agree but also I don’t think they’ll be able to just add the fee now.
If this truly stands then (if I’m understanding correctly) they fall off the nfa completely. Which makes them just like a regular firearm. They would have to get the courts to completely reneg on the previous ruling AND pass a budget to raise the tax. If they were able to accomplish that then they already would’ve with regular ARs or Glocks or what have you.
I’m curious what more legal analysis and scrutiny determines but from my very limited understanding this is essentially… er… bulletproof lol.
And also absolutely fucking genius. I had completely forgotten about this case and had some similar fears. But this completely backed the ATF into a catch 22. I also want to commend the ATF director because he seems to be doing what we’ve all needed him to do.
•
u/Itchy-Cup-8755 26d ago edited 26d ago
need legal man with aft profile picture
so if the argument IS in fact the original “no longer taxed=registry=no longer NFA,” that means that states like NC won’t have to worry about form 4s either way, correct? since the state law says NFA items=form 4, and they’ll no longer be NFA
for plaintiffs, of course, but that brings it to point two:
didn’t the previous supreme court case also say that things that might get super fucky wucky, like these, can still be applied more broadly or nationwide by the fed? or the ATF just have to say “to hell with it” and stop enforcing it for non-plaintiffs since it’s such a fucky wucky situation? or is it just to much hopium?
edit: just looked up NC’s law. it essentially states that weapons of mass destruction, including SBSs, SBRs, and silencers/mufflers are excepted from the state’s law so long as they comply with 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, §§ 5801-5871.
so yea, it looks like our state at least still has to comply with it since it includes “silencers/mufflers” in the language, instead of saying “NFA items” or similar. interestingly, though, 14.288.8 (b) ALSO says
“(b) This section does not apply to any of the following:
…. (4) Inventors, designers, ordnance consultants and researchers, chemists, physicists, and other persons lawfully engaged in pursuits designed to enlarge knowledge or to facilitate the creation, development, or manufacture of weapons of mass death and destruction intended for use in a manner consistent with the laws of the United States and the State of North Carolina.” maybe i’m looking too deeply into it, but it seems to contradict (5) if “Inventors” can mean somebody designing and printing one. i doubt that’s what it means legally, but i meaaannnnnn 🤷♂️
edit again: “Persons who lawfully possess or own a weapon as defined in subsection (c) of this section in compliance with 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, §§ [5801-5871](tel:5801-5871). Nothing in this subdivision shall limit the discretion of the sheriff in executing the paperwork required by the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms for such person to obtain the weapon” is the clause. so i mean theoretically, since not having to be registered with the NFA is technically in compliance, i feel that could be interpreted as good to go with only a 4473, no? unless the second clause can be interpreted as mandatory paperwork as a catch all
•
u/CallsignFlorida 26d ago
Everyone is focused on Form4 stuff… which it is still a net positive… but what about Form1 stuff?
•
u/specter491 26d ago
If you can legally create a firearm for personal use in your home state the suppressors are treated exactly the same way. Have at it. (I am not a lawyer)
•
•
u/Itchy-Cup-8755 26d ago
i suppose maybe the same logic? not nfa=not required form 1? idk the language of the law for it specifically, though. but 100%
•
•
u/burner456987123 25d ago
Trump doesn’t give AF about guns or gun rights. Guy probably never shot one in his life.
Yes I realize the GOP at least pretends to support the 2a (with exceptions such as believing Alex Pretti deserved to die for legally carrying), but actions speak louder than words. They’re all cheap talk at best.
•
u/Megalith70 25d ago
This is a shit take.
•
u/burner456987123 25d ago
What did i say that’s incorrect? I’m unaffiliated and am not a “vote blue no matter who” or “temporary gun owner.” But this admin, what have they done for the 2a other than no tax stamps on cans?
Everyone can keep hoping for temporary injunctions. They can think executive orders actually mean something. They can point to lower court rulings (not sure which). This admin is not some group of second amendment saviors.
•
u/Megalith70 25d ago
His administration has done more to benefit gun owners than any other administration in history. His DoJ forced Los Angeles to issue licenses in under 120 days, when they took years to issue a handful. His administration is arguing against state assault weapons bans. His administration is suing California over its handgun roster and Glock ban. His administration argued suppressors are protected by the 2nd amendment.
•
u/AlchemicalToad 26d ago
This is clearly just an attempt by the Trump admin to win people back into their good graces ahead of an election. Don’t get me wrong, I’m ecstatic that it’s happening, but it’s for all the wrong reasons.
•
u/Megalith70 26d ago
I disagree. His administration in term 2 has been much more pro 2A since the start.
•
u/AlchemicalToad 26d ago
This Admin isn’t in support of 2A, because they aren’t in support of the Constitution. They are pandering.
•
u/darkstar541 26d ago
Why not appeal to SCOTUS then and make it nationwide?
•
u/Megalith70 25d ago
There’s no guarantee higher courts won’t reverse the district court.
•
u/darkstar541 25d ago
The gov has to appeal for that to happen, and I doubt this SCOTUS would. The iron is hot!
•
•
u/Anonymous_Bozo 26d ago
This may not be as good of news as it sounds. With no appeal, the ruling will only apply in the 5th Circuit, so the rest of us get screwed. An appeal would give SCOTUS a chance to make it nation wide.
•
u/Megalith70 26d ago edited 25d ago
It applies to the named plaintiffs, so if you join one of gun groups or use Silencer Shop, it will apply nationwide.
•
u/Anonymous_Bozo 26d ago
A right that depends on membership in a particular group is not a right.
•
•
•
u/Hairy_Heart8917 25d ago
Let me know when the state laws are changed till then this isn’t a win when about 15 states still require you to fill out the form 4 anyway
•
•
u/burner456987123 25d ago
•
u/Megalith70 25d ago
Name a president that has been more beneficial to the 2A than Trump.
•
u/burner456987123 25d ago
I’m not gonna convince a cult member on this. I look at the tangible results. Aside from getting a suppressor with the tax, Trump hasn’t done a thing for my rights. It’s performative bs proclamations.
I’d go with the founders who actually helped write the amendment. It’s too bad they didn’t write it more clearly, causing 250 years of court fights and “subject to interpretation.”
•
u/Megalith70 25d ago
Stop deflecting. Call me a cult member all you want but at least I have something to back up my claims. You just want everything fixed with a single snap of his fingers and that’s not reality.
•
u/burner456987123 25d ago
I gave you an answer and linked to examples of the Trump admin failing to protect the 2a and even trashing it (in the case of using Pretti’s gun possession as a pretext for murdering him).
Did you not see what Noem said after that killing?
https://www.bbc.com/news/videos/cgqegq0kj02o
(You’ll probably attack this source, you can see the videos for yourself):
Statement #1: “An individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun” DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a news conference, adding that the suspect was “brandishing” a firearm.
Yeah. So pro 2a. Our former DHS secretary and attorney general demonizing gun owners and justifying their murder.
•
u/Megalith70 25d ago
Accurately describing what Pretti did is not an attack on our 2A rights.
•
u/burner456987123 25d ago
🤣 wow. Ok. Watch the videos. He didn’t do anything other than help a lady up who was pushed down by ice. He was legally carrying. The investigation and videos showed he didn’t have the gun out of the holster.
Try to get your news away from your silo. This is reality.
•
u/Megalith70 25d ago
Alex Pretti had multiple run ins with ICE while repeatedly interfering with their operations. I don’t care when commies get smoked.
•
u/burner456987123 25d ago
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/24/alex-pretti-killing-witness-testimony
I’m not a “commie” either. Why believe in the 2a and not the 1a? Ridiculous.
•
u/Megalith70 25d ago
The 1A allows you to interfere with federal law enforcement?
→ More replies (0)
•
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/bownt1 26d ago
what is it like being mad all the time?
•
u/DontRememberOldPass 25d ago
What is it like being totally fine with a pedophile getting away with harming children?
•
u/bownt1 25d ago
yawn
•
u/DontRememberOldPass 25d ago
If ten people sit at a table with a pedophile talking and paying no attention to his actions, you’ve got a table with 11 pedophiles.
•
u/bownt1 25d ago
why has the video not been released
•
u/DontRememberOldPass 25d ago
Because he is in charge of releasing the evidence.
•
u/bownt1 25d ago
singularly?
•
u/DontRememberOldPass 25d ago
Spot on. It seems all of his supporters seem to lack the most basic understanding of the world around them.
•
u/specter491 26d ago
Wow. We did it. We won.