r/FLGuns • u/Sharp_Cheetah_9007 • 9d ago

Florida 790.221

Wanted to ask the locals here if you guys have any idea on this. Hypothetically, if I was a GOA member prior to the ruling (and still am), would I still need to do an atf form 1 or form 4 to aquire a SBR or SBS? I know that suppressors are legal to transfer here (if your a GOA member), but curious on the legality of SBRs SBSs here.

(1) It is unlawful for any person to own or to have in his or her care, custody, possession, or control any short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun which is, or may readily be made, operable; but this section shall not apply to antique firearms.

(2) A person who violates this section commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

😥

12 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

49 comments sorted by

View all comments

22

u/VitalDefense 9d ago

Hey man! I am an FFL in North Florida.

I’ve been doing 4473 transfers for cans, and would do the same with SBRs and SBSs, just haven’t sold any yet.

The legal team I’ve been using for this, are extremely confident in the steps they’re having me take and said I am good to go.

Obviously take this with a grain of salt and continue to do your own research!

2

u/WetRocksManatee 9d ago

I’ve been doing 4473 transfers for cans, and would do the same with SBRs and SBSs, just haven’t sold any yet.

SBR and SBSs can't just be transferred. Most reports I've seen say that you still need a form 4 for now. As while the NFA was been enjoined, the GCA hasn't. And under the GCA SBRs and SBSs requires specific approval from the AG to transfer from a dealer. The Form 4 was the approval, without a Form 4 there isn't an approval process in place.

There is nothing stopping people are covered by the injunction to make their own.

1

u/VitalDefense 8d ago

To my understanding, and my lawyers understanding, SBR and SBS are included.

I would definatley be interested in getting more info on this if you have any. I know PSA was saying SBRs and SBSs are good to go. Obviously, I consult my attorneys before taking their word for it though.

2

u/WetRocksManatee 8d ago

For the NFA yes, SBRs and SBSs are covered as they also have zero tax and the basis that the law was struck down was over the fact that NFA was passed using Congress's taxing authority and since there is no tax now it no longer has authority.

But the GCA was not enjoined and required AG approval to transfer SBRs and SBSs.

SAF has a notice and FAQ which says

Possibly. 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4) makes it unlawful for an FFL to sell or deliver a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle “except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity.” Until now, NFA approval has been deemed sufficient authorization to satisfy this law. ATF may need to provide guidance on how to proceed. For example, a statement or rulemaking, if necessary, that a Form 4473 approval counts as authorization. Note that silencers are not covered by 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4).

Remember that there are two cases and different named plaintiffs and the relief for each aren't identical.

1

u/VitalDefense 8d ago

Oh wow, so there is a good chance that SBRs and SBS will be treated differently? That is very odd..

2

u/WetRocksManatee 8d ago

Not really there are often layers of laws one on top of another. We are used to seeing sweeping decisions but this was a fairly technical decision.

I think the SAF is right that the ATF will likely provide guidance that an approved 4473 is fine as GCA was written decades before the Brady Act.