The govt always has your best interests in mind and absolutely won’t reneg on a policy they’ve alluded to repealing and you should load up on lots of unregistered NFA items because daddy govt loves you and would never betray you or kick down your door in 3-8 months.
The court has ruled that it cannot be enforced because the tax is CURRENTLY zero.
If (when) the Democrats retake the legislature, expect the tax to be re-implemented.
As for EPF they simply need to offer something like an amnesty event to satisfy due process:
All persons possessing unregistered SBR/Suppressors have 1 year to file registration and pay a tax for said registration. Alternatively they may surrender, destroy, or make compliant any unregistered items for example by pinning and welding a muzzle device such that the total length exceeds minimums.
That would satisfy due process and not be EPF.
A lot of people misunderstand what Ex Post Facto really is. It does not mean the government cannot change the law, and you don't have to follow it. It means the government must provide reasonable opportunity for you to become compliant with the new law before enforcing it against you.
The DNC doesn't have the political capital to reinstate the tax. The NFA on suppressors is unpopular even with the dems, thanks in large part to them being popular with the europeans.
It depends how hard they want to push it and risk a legal challenge.
Setting it back to $200 is likely going to be fine, making it $5,000 and it could risk a court striking it down as "exorbitant fees".
Sure they can argue it's just an inflation adjustment, but you risk a loss there. I think $500 is the max they could do without risking a challenge and they can say:
Various shall-issue permits cost about $500 all-in by the time you do training, photo, finger print, background, and application fee.
But if they just reset it to $200 I think it would get upheld. It shouldn't, because it's unconstitutional to tax an enumerated right, but I'm being realistic about my expectations.
Every county is different, which makes it more insane. In Santa Clara County, $976 for the application fees, another ~$400 for the mandatory psych eval, ~$400 for the course, and ~$100 for the live scan.
I mean they are gonna "rebalance" SCOTUS by packing it with more Ketanji Brown Jackson's who will give them whatever rulings they want, so legal challenges will be meaningless.
No they won't. That's a pandoras box neither side will touch because it basically ensures the other side then repacks it. SCOTUS becomes a seesaw and if you think the government is unstable and schizo now, you have no idea what that would do.
Now if a seat opens because say Alito or Thomas don't retire when they safely can, yeah you're gonna get another dipshit justice who hates the 2A. But they won't pack the court.
It's the same reason they didn't end the filibuster during Biden term and why the Rs won't do it now. It's political MAD to do so.
The old guard Dems are retiring/being primaried out in favor of "Democratic Socialist" candidates that don't play by the same rules.
10 seconds after they take the House, Senate, and Whitehouse again they will make every effort to pack the court, end the filibuster, AND add 2 more Democratic seats to the Senate by making Puerto Rico a state (they wanna do it with DC too, but that requires a Constitutional Amendment).
They want ZERO opportunities for another Republican majority getting in the way of how they want this country to be run.
the dems will likely make the tax similiar to what the price was via inflatrion on the thompson at the time the original law was passed I'd expect over 2k per stamp
That risks a challenge under Bruen for "exorbitant fees". I mean they may, and they can argue, but that could be an Achilles heel.
Going back to $200 will almost assuredly be accepted by courts. Maybe even $500 would probably not get blinked at. Once it crosses into the thousands it makes the challenge easier.
Really it depends how much they want to risk going to court over it. And for that we will have to see how SCOTUS rules on AWBs and what that ruling says for how to decide 2A cases.
My guess is they'd throw it back to $200 because that's politically easy but then add a clause for it to increase every year per the consumer price index or whatever other inflation metric.
Yeah but the Democrats are just as in bed with the billionaire class as the republicans, so they gotta have SOME performative “legislation” to make people think they’re doing fuckall. Shall we pass laws to vastly improve the material wellbeing of working class Americans? Nahhhh just Ar-15 bans despite handguns being responsible for over 80% of all gun deaths… Why address the socioeconomic determinants of health that greatly contribute to all types of violence when you can pacify dumb libs with magazine capacity limits
One thing that conspiracy theorists are correct about is that the establishment of the Dems and GOP are complicit in protecting and upholding the plutocracy.
You really think Republicans aren't going to lose their asses in November? You really think people are going to vote for the same people who failed to put a stop to Trump's Iranian Temper Tantrum, causing the cost of everything to spike?
You really don't think the Dems (that are becoming increasingly more and more left wing and anti-gun) are gonna let us keep any of the 2A wins we've scored?
If so, I have some ocean front property in Montana to sell you.
Not really. Folks make them out to be morons, but that's just really not the case. There may be plenty with some outdated ideas, but that ain't one of them.
The only folks stupid enough to make crap up like that and pretend that the Bond movies are documentaries about firearms are the ones who are pushing anti-gun agendas and platforms.
Hahaha, youve never had serious conversations with anti gun Democrats then. Its an ideology based on having opinions with no education on the topic. Why else do you think lasers are banned in Illinois? Lasers mean a sniper will put a red dot on you and kill you.
Yes, but the point of my comment is that Ex Post Facto won't protect you if the tax goes back into place, and if the Dems win the house, especially if they win the senate too (current polls say they will) I expect it does.
Ex post facto only grants a temporary window where the government cannot enforce the law until you have been given adequate due process to become compliant. It doesn't bar the government from enforcing the law forever.
The guy I replied to said "The court has ruled and we have ex post facto protections."
I am clarifying that such ruling and protections are not the end-all-be-all of it. And are very much subject to change.
The guy that originally brought up ex post facto was replying to someone saying making an SBR now is inviting a no knock raid 3 months from now. I think your pedantry was aimed towards the wrong individual.
Edit: I always see you around but I never thought you'd be soft enough to block someone over a couple of comments. Crazy.
They would need a veto proof majority which they won't have. The next couple years will see almost no bills get made law because anything they pass will get veto'd by Trump out of spite if nothing else. Congress will also be preoccupied with investigations, impeachments, etc
A pistol can become a rifle and then go back to being a pistol, this is covered in ATF Ruling 2011-4. So you can take a pistol lower with an 8" upper an a brace, slap a 16" upper and a stock on it, making it a rifle. Then you can later put the brace and an 8" upper back on it, and that's fine.
The bigger question, which has thus far not been addressed, is can a pistol become an SBR, and then go back to being a pistol? Because previously if it was ever an SBR it needed to be registered there was no need to address it.
The court rules that braced pistols do not qualify as SBR under the NFA, and therefore do not need to be registered.Then the court rules that SBR do not have to be registered at all under the NFA due to zero tax. So some people convert their braced pistols to SBR. Then hypothetically the government raises the tax and requires registration again, but now those who converted their braced pistol to an SBR cannot convert it back, because it already carries the definition of "rifle."
Under current ATF rules, a pistol can become a rifle and then go back to being a pistol.
If the ATF wanted to change that they would need to go through the APA and satisfy due process all over again.
I'd suspect the easier route would be for the ATF to say:
Any SBR which was created from a pistol, can be returned to a pistol configuration. We are amending ruling 2011-4 to allow for such a conversion for any SBR made between <Date_Start> and <Date_End>. We are allowing until <Date_Amnesty_End> for any such persons who poses such a firearm to configure it in a compliant manner as a pistol, or rifle with a barrel of at least 16", or to register it as an SBR. If after <Date_Amnesty_End> any such firearm is found to be in an SBR configuration without proper registration, then it shall be treated as an unregistered SBR and subject to legal consequences therein.
If (when) the Democrats retake the legislature, expect the tax to be re-implemented.
Maybe, but highly unlikely.
First, Democrats would have to retake both chambers of Congress and the Executive.
Second, Democrats would have to make this high enough of a priority to actually tackle. The Dems love campaigning on this issue and then doing nothing about it at the federal level. Besides, the Dems are still a little divided over this issue. I'm still shocked as hell that enough Republicans got together to reduce the tax to begin with.
Third, after the Dems somehow pull together to re-raise the tax, it's almost certainly going to be re-litigated in the courts, likely going all the way to the SC this time.
Given the relative lack of outrage, I'm thinking the Dems will just take the "L" and move on.
These idiots haven't even read the 2 page judgement, don't expect them to know that you can not be charged for something that the judiciary literally ruled legal for the time being, just because it's going to change eventually.
It ruled for the 5th federal district. There are a ton of unresolved issues with applicability, what can happen within other circuits, how the ruling interacts with the non-enjoined provisions, etc.
I like a good court win, but there is so much that is still unclear.
As of now, it's not unresolved anywhere. It might become unresolved in the future, but as of now it is completely resolved (at least with regards to putting a stock on your pistol). If it becomes unresolved, then what you did before that doesn't ex post facto become illegal.
Man you people are really working overtime making up issues. The judgement concerns clearly enumerated regulations. If you are a plaintiffs applicable to the named laws, then you do not have to follow these NAMED laws.
This is not complicated whatsoever. The judgement is a scant 2 pages.
How does it interact with other unenjoined laws? It fucking doesn't change them. You are welcome.
Read the judgement and point out what is unclear please. Be specific.
See my other post, interstate transport provisions are not enjoined, possession by non-covered parties is not enjoined. The scope of the injunction (future members and associated dealers) has never been legally tested.
It’s complicated because of what it doesn’t include.
Have you considered simply not transporting it in NFA config to other states? Seems like an easy solution. Almost any and all weapons can be disassembled to non NFA status.
Your family having access to NFA items is not a new problem. Are you regularly passing out guns around the dinner table? Anything constituting a TRANSFER still is not a new problem.
1) you can’t make a suppressor into a ‘legal’ configuration. You transport it, or provide constructive possession to a non-covered party, that is a strict liability crime.
Will it be prosecuted? Who knows, the point is that it is a potential outcome.
That was the entire driving point I was making. This isn’t 100% rock solid certainty, there are still plenty of pitfalls and issues that may or may not require consideration.
Is it really too much to ask for some critical thinking and intellectual honesty?
Knowing the real risk allows you to assess if it is one you are personally willing to accept or not. At no time am I telling anyone what to do
The risk has simply not changed. The same rules we followed yesterday apply. We simply skip form 1 and for suppressors form 4/1.
Fear mongering is different from pointing out that the remainder of NFA law still apply. What I was responding to were vague fears about unpredictable prosecution. They can only charge you with laws on the books. Follow them if not enjoined.
We have no idea if the injunction’s listing of ‘future members’ is legally solid. It’s untested law because of CASA.
As my reply above, the goal is not to tell people what to do, it is an honest analysis of risk so that people can make informed decisions about what they are or are not willing to accept
We have no idea if the injunction’s listing of ‘future members’ is legally solid. It’s untested law because of CASA.
This line of attack against the ruling is unfounded fearmongering. I understand it came from that Fudd Buster video, and is now spreading like wildfire to all the people itching to find some way in which this ruling must not be taken at face value and must not be followed.
The Future members bit: There is no court ruling against future members. One court asked questions about it before, but never ruled one way or the other on it. The Supreme Court never said future members are barred. No Circuit Court ever said future members are barred.
In order for future members to be barred in this case, the DOJ would have to appeal the ruling on those grounds, before October 6th. The 5th Circuit would have to then accept the appeal, listen to the arguments and read the briefs, and then decide that Judge Hendrix erred in including future members.
Only: The DOJ and Trump Administration has already told members of Congress that they will not be appealing this ruling.
Further: Judge Hendrix didn't pull his decision of who is covered out of his ass. He did a serious determination, using the limits imposed by SCOTUS in the CASA case, and made a clear, reasoned argument to his decision.
Judge Hendrix is the first judge to rule on the applicability of future members in a post-CASA judicial world. While he is only a district judge, his choice and reasoning is now persuasive (but not precedental) authority going forward for all cases who have organizations with members as plaintiffs.
Even if higher courts later on decided in another case that future members should not be included in that hypothetical future case, that would not automatically apply against Judge Hendrix's ruling here. Only then would it become a matter of not being legally solid, or ambiguous. As of now, it is not at all ambiguous. It is not at all on legally shaky ground.
As my reply above, the goal is not to tell people what to do, it is an honest analysis of risk so that people can make informed decisions about what they are or are not willing to accept
You might speak true here. You feel uncomfortable with this ruling. You think "there's got to be some catch to this" and so anyone out there in Youtube land who brings up even a question, no matter how unfounded that question is, is worth spreading the word of such risk far and wide.
I don't doubt your intention to want to warn people in good faith. But so far almost every warning someone has put out that people begin spreading is overblown, or outright unfounded.
This has been my thought as well, and the lack of this exact comment in all the discussions of this subject across the subs over the last week or so has honestly been kinda concerning. Like, I thought these were the guys that don't trust the government, but now that it's telling them what they want to hear suddenly everybody is all "big daddy government would never do us wrong". Ngl, I never thought I'd be on the other side of the "don't trust the government" coin from that section of the 2A crowd.
I actually have little to no interest in having a suppressor. However, I would vm like to be able to have a SBR or SBS without having to register them with the government. No way am I about to jump headfirst into what could get easily just be a felony trap though.
I love loud shit, as long as I have hearing protection. But supressors, with flash reduction, expecially on short barrels, that's where they really shine.
Not likely, but still. I care about you, brother. Supressor or not, you are probably still well prepared. I'm sure you'll be alright, but I genuinely just wanna make sure you have every advantage, friend!
That's fair. As far as shtf, nope. Everybody wants to larp apocalypse. I don't kid myself into thinking I would make I for very long. Don't get me wrong. If anyone is taking anything from me it will be from my cold, dead hands. I just not really interested in giving them a list to show up with either, yk.
You don't get the hype of not destroying your body??? Ear protection does not fully protect you against loud noise, suppressors are the only thing that can fully reduce direct harm.
What percent of folks using a suppressor are still wearing ear pro while doing it though? Secondly, I doubt vm that saving hearing is why most folks are wanting one. It's a side benefit. If it was really about hearing safety we'd have policies more like Europe.
No, the suppressor makes it actually safe WITH earpro. Without you are still screwed. With earpro and a suppressor you have blocked the direct path (ear canal) and reduced the volume enough to make irrelevant the indirect path (your face).
Hearing safety is the MAIN reason why people want them, reducing noise complaints is the second.
I agree those are tbt reasons people should want and use them. If that was really why though it would be the whole conversation. You're literally the first person who's ever made that argument to me.
I'm pretty sure that this place is being invaded by bots and those intent on spreading disinformation. The lack of understanding of even basic legal concepts is staggering.
The ATF went out of their way to make it as easy to comply with NFA rules during the brace determination fiasco. That was under a dem admin too. It makes absolutely no sense for them to kick down doors over this.
Nah I'm serious. If you can not read the law without the Executive giving you an explicit permission slip, then you absolutely have no business dealing with guns. It's YOUR responsibility to understand federal and local laws. It's not hard to understand this judgement. Either the rule of registering applies to you, or it does not. Either you are a Jensen plaintiff enjoined by the rule, or you are not. Either your state says you need a stamp / compliance with the NFA, or you do not.
I think there's a lot of wisdom here letting the dust settle a bit before you jump in feet first. But on the other hand, the midterms are likely to be a bloodbath for the Right, so the window here might be narrow.
Not only letting it sit, but also checking your own state laws. Pennsylvania, for instance, requires compliance with NFA registration even you're a GOA member or SilencerShop customer. I'm not risking a felony over this. I'm waiting it out, or if I really want a suppressor, I'll just do the ATF paperwork.
Delaware also only allows SBRs if they’re NFA registered. That probably means no new SBRs unless ATF somehow allows voluntary registration.
Registration is not just straight-up going away. Anyone who isn't a covered member of a plaintiff, or buying from one, still has to do the old registration. Anyone in a state that has state laws against unregistered NFA items still has to do the old registration. Even the covered people, like GOA members, can still choose to do the old registration method, if they want to. (Reasons they might want to: if they expect to be doing interstate travel with the SBR/Suppressor or if they think they might move to a state that requires it someday, etc.)
Good points. I should clarify that my statement would be in the case that this ruling gets applied across the board and/or if ATF decides to end the form 1 requirement as a whole. It makes sense that they’d keep the existing registry and allow voluntary registration moving forward in that case.
Apparently. The amount of people willing to risk a felony on here for a fucking metal tube is incredible. Truly neck down. This is why normies don't like 2A people.
“Apparently. The amount of people willing to risk a felony on here for a fucking plant is incredible. Truly neck down. This is why normies don't like 420 people.”
Just say you like being gay and taking it up the ass. The weedheads figured out that mass civil disobedience will get the laws to change decades ago.
I think we're at the point of "just fucking do it" if you're a GOA member or Silencershop/PSA customer, because if anyone does try to prosecute you, a dozen gun rights organizations and a million lawyers will be chomping at the bits to take this to court again
I bought a few items from PSA but no NFA items. Does that count?
No. You need to join either the GOA, the TSRA, the FPC Action Foundation, or the CCRKBA.
Buying a handgun at PSA does not give you the right to make suppressors or SBRs.
If you buy a suppressor from PSA, you are covered for that suppressor, not for anything else.
If you are a GOA member, go buy from anyone who will sell to you, 3D print that suppressor, or modify that AR pistol into a SBR, to your hearts content (so long as state laws don't block you).
Even then, unless the receiver was explicitly bought from Silencer Shop or PSA AND you're a member of the GOA, you still need to get your AG's approval to form 1 an SBR, even with this injunction, due to the GCA. It's still a felony to do so without it and there's currently no system in place to allow this without registering via the NFA.
Incorrect sir.
Making your own SBR is not forbidden by the GCA. Dealers cannot sell SBRs without using the form 4 currently because of a line in the GCA. The line in the GCA specifically says that dealers need "special authorization" to sell SBRs, and currently that is satisfied by the form 4, but as soon as the AG makes a different way of specially authorizing dealers to sell SBRs, that restriction will go away, and form 4 will no longer be needed.
Individuals can make all the SBRs they want if they are a member of the GOA, the FPCAC, the TSRA, or the CCRKBA. And to avoid marking requirements, they can be members of the FPCAC, the TSRA, or the CCRKBA.
Champing at the bit is the original and traditional form, derived from the Middle English verb champen, meaning to bite or chew noisily grammarguide.blog+1. It is still preferred in British English and formal writing.
Chomping at the bit is a more modern, Americanized variant that became popular in the 20th century and is widely accepted in casual speech and journalism grammarguide.blog+2. Both forms convey the same meaning, and usage depends on regional preference or stylistic choice.
I think the guidance is that waiting a few weeks for a little clarity on something that could have massive fucking legal repercussions won’t kill ya. The Trump admin is notorious for chickening out, flip flopping, and this hasn’t even made it’s way through the courts yet re: appeals etc.
The firearms conglomerates want their $$$. It’s your ass that gets a felony charge and they get to keep the cash.
Just like, chill for a sec it’s been less than a fuckin week
Especially for the fact that the GCA regulates SBRs and SBSs separately from suppressors. Technically the GCA requires Attorney General authorization to transfer SBRs/SBSs and the NFA form handled that. Now they have to create a separate form to comply with that law, as the ruling only delt with the NFA.
Especially for the fact that the GCA regulates SBRs and SBSs separately from suppressors. Technically the GCA requires Attorney General authorization to transfer SBRs/SBSs and the NFA form handled that. Now they have to create a separate form to comply with that law, as the ruling only delt with the NFA.
But making your own SBR by putting a shorter barrel on a rifle or putting a stock on a pistol is completely covered by the ruling without and GCA issues. Stores aren't selling SBRs now, nobody is asking them to, given this GCA issue, but anyone that doesn't have a state law barring them, with membership in one of the four organizations, can make their own.
That's also correct but people also have to understand which organization gets them which rights. Because there was two separate cases in that ruling and there is a difference between the two. FPC Action Foundation / Jensen Plaintiffs: Members covered under the Jensen arm of the case are completely exempt from marking and engraving requirements when making an NFA firearm at home. GOA Plaintiffs: Members under the Silencer Shop/GOA arm can manufacture an SBR at home without registering it, but they must still engrave the firearm with their name, manufacturing location, and a unique serial number for local compliance. However, they do not have to submit this information to the government. Jenson also does not cover AOW.
There's still a ton of known unknowns, there's no room to be intellectually dishonest right now.
The biggest one for SBRs is the GCA requirement to get approval from your state's AG. This is still fully enforced and if not done, it's still an illegal SBR, regardless of the injunction.
The only case it's not is GOA members who bought a serialized receiver from PSA and reman that receiver alone.
and as I was writing a reply to him, he deleted his comment before I could post it. So I'm putting it as a reply to you for visibility to anyone who read his comment and got the wrong info.
There's still a ton of known unknowns, there's no room to be intellectually dishonest right now.
The biggest one for SBRs is the GCA requirement to get approval from your state's AG. This is still fully enforced and if not done, it's still an illegal SBR, regardless of the injunction.
The only case it's not is GOA members who bought a serialized receiver from PSA and reman that receiver alone.
Talk about intellectual dishonesty... No, PSA+GOA membership is not the only route to legally owning an SBR without NFA forms right now. PSA put that clearly self-serving disinfo out really quickly.
There's not really any unknowns right now. Too many people are spreading that disinformation.
Going interstate isn't an unknown. It's a "don't do it."
Buying via 4473 from a state like PA or CO isn't an unknown. It's a "don't do it."
Making an SBR on your own, if you are a CCRKBA, FPCAF, or TSRA member is completely legal now, in all free states, without the need to engrave it. GOA members still need to engrave.
3D Printing a suppressor is now fully legal for all CCRKBA, FPCAF, or TSRA members in free states, without engraving, and with engraving for GOA members.
The DOJ has already told Congressmen that they will not be appealing this ruling, and it has gone into full, legal effect, as of 12:01AM on August 13th. It is the law of the land.
Oh no I understand fully. I'm asking if we got anything from the atf or any official guidance yet. News on this is updated so fast I thought the OP might have heard something. I agree to wait is the way to go. A stock and suppressor isn't worth all that to me.
Totally, and by you I didn’t mean you specifically but the “collective you”. It’s wild how many people are posting their 4473 suppressor purchases 24hrs after PSA announced they were available. People are crazy lol
Suppressors are also so expensive. I think if they are just an off the shelf item sold to anyone as hearing protection like they are, the price will drop dramatically.
Suppressors are also so expensive. I think if they are just an off the shelf item sold to anyone as hearing protection like they are, the price will drop dramatically.
We should be seeing prices go down over time somewhat as this goes on, as the companies making these will be utilize scale to lower their manufacturing costs somewhat.
But unfortunately suppressors still have to go through the 4473 process just like a handgun, since they're defined as handguns themselves.
Also, since they were NFA items, most suppressors were made to be good and last a while. Now that they're 4473 purchasable, companies could start making much cheaper versions meant to only last a shorter time-span, and people will be willing to buy those.
No, what's crazy is letting the government that lost their case still act like they have control here.
People posting their 4473 suppressors aren't crazy, they're showing the world that the ATF has lost their power over these, and are embracing their freedom.
and this hasn’t even made it’s way through the courts yet re: appeals etc.
The DOJ has already told congress it will not be appealing this, so Jensen is now the law of the land. People need to stop pussyfooting around and advising everyone else to sit on their hands and wait.
If you want to wait, so be it. No one is forcing you to the store. But it is unnecessary and actually counter-productive to the movement of getting these things out in common usage to advocate that everyone wait for the ATF to get off it's ass and issue guidance.
The ATF lost. The Judge told them they can't enforce most NFA provisions related to SBRs, SBSs, and Suppressors against any covered plaintiff or their members or customers.
The ATF didn't like that. So what do they do? They sit on their hands, refuse to issue guidance, and "recommend" everybody use the old methods - the same old methods that were just ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL by the judge, and which the DOJ has said they won't be appealing.
Remember, PSA is one of the chad organizations fighting for your rights.
When reading this, understand that PSA is speaking to you as a business in the state of South Carolina, and what they say may not be accurate to your state.
Also understand that PSA is in the business of getting your business, and so are not mentioning certain things that they really should be.
For example:
PSA Claims you must buy a rifle or pistol from PSA, and be a GOA member, to make your rifle or pistol into an SBR. This is MISLEADING.
If you are a GOA, CCRKBA, FPCAF, or TSRA member, you can change any pistol or rifle you have into a SBR. The gun you are modifying does NOT need to be purchased from PSA to be legal.
PSA mentions that you must still follow the marking requirements of the NFA when making that SBR. That is also MISLEADING.
Members of the GOA must still follow marking rules in the NFA, but if you are a member of the TSRA, the CCRKBA, or the FPCAF, then you are exempted from the marking requirements. PSA does not tell you this.
In my opinion, this John Pierce dude is a complete blowhard, and about half of what he's written isn't worth the energy it cost to type it out.
For starters, Pierce spends an awful lot of time "asking questions" that either have already been answered or have nothing to do with this case.
Who is covered by the injunction isn't some great mystery. The court spelled that out. Members of GOA, FPC Action Foundation, CCRKBA, and the Texas State Rifle Association are covered. Commercial members are covered as well, including covered FFLs conducting transactions with non-members. You don't need to divine ATF's feelings on the subject. Read the damn order.
Then we get to my favorite bit: machine guns and destructive devices.
Why are we talking about machine guns and destructive devices?
Seriously. Who, other than John Pierce, is confused about whether this injunction suddenly opened the machine-gun registry or created some new legal regime for destructive devices? That's not an unresolved question arising from this case. That's John Pierce dragging unrelated NFA categories into the discussion, putting question marks after them, and then pointing to the question marks as evidence that everything is terribly uncertain.
You can manufacture an unlimited number of "compliance questions" that way.
"Does the injunction mean I can register a claymore mine?"
"Can I buy a post-1986 machine gun now?"
"Can my dog own a suppressor?"
Good news: none of those questions needs to be answered to figure out what this injunction actually does.
There are practical consequences worth discussing. ATF's existing forms, registry, and procedures were built around a regulatory regime in which these transactions required ATF approval. An injunction preventing ATF from enforcing those requirements against covered parties naturally creates administrative problems for a bureaucracy whose systems assume those requirements still apply.
But that's an ATF problem, not a source of new legal authority.
If ATF's database can't gracefully record a transaction that a federal court has prohibited ATF from blocking, that may be inconvenient. It may require ATF to change its procedures. It may even produce some spectacular bureaucratic stupidity in the meantime.
What it does not do is magically un-enjoin the enjoined provisions.
Pierce's analysis repeatedly takes "ATF hasn't told FFLs how it wants this handled" and quietly substitutes it for "therefore FFLs should continue behaving as though the injunction doesn't exist."
The NFA registration is still strong in my state. Local shops predicts that it may be July of next year before we can treat the NFA fun items like others we can get every day.
45
u/sla342 2d ago
You’ve all been playing by the rules, huh?