r/VAGuns • u/RgbZoomer • 1d ago
The History of 'possessed in compliance with federal law'
A lot people are spewing bullshit, so I decided to look up the history on this.
Virginia may already allow injunction-protected SBR/SBS possession without a Form 1 — and the legislative history matters
Not legal advice. I’ve been digging through Virginia’s SBR/SBS statutes, the 2026 Silencer Shop/Jensen ruling, and Virginia’s legislative history, and there’s an important point I don’t see many people discussing.
Virginia Code §18.2-300 generally prohibits civilian possession of a state-defined sawed-off rifle or shotgun. But §18.2-303.1 expressly says that nothing in the article prohibits one that is:
“possessed in compliance with federal law.”
Virginia appellate courts have already recognized §18.2-303.1 as containing the actual civilian exceptions to the state prohibition. Dillard v. Commonwealth specifically describes it that way. (FindLaw)
Here’s where the history gets interesting.
Virginia used to have its own state registration requirement for sawed-off shotguns. That requirement was repealed in the 1970s. Virginia later expanded the law to cover rifles and, in 1993, added the present “possessed in compliance with federal law” exception.
In other words, Virginia knew perfectly well how to require state registration if it wanted to. It got rid of that system and later chose to make federal compliance the standard instead.
Virginia did not write:
“must have an approved Form 1”
“must be registered in the NFRTR”
“must have an NFA tax stamp”
or
“must bear additional NFA maker markings.”
It chose the much broader language: “possessed in compliance with federal law.”
Now look at what happened federally.
On August 5, 2026, the federal district court in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, consolidated with Jensen v. ATF, held the challenged NFA provisions unconstitutional after Congress reduced the relevant NFA making/transfer taxes to $0. The court permanently enjoined ATF/DOJ from enforcing those provisions against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their current and future members/customers. That includes major Form 1, registration, making and possession provisions. The Jensen plaintiffs received additional relief from §5842(b) and §5861(i). (GovInfo)
So for someone genuinely covered by that injunction, the ordinary Form 1/registration provisions are not merely being ignored by ATF — the federal government is under a court order prohibiting it from enforcing them against that person.
Then on October 9, ATF went further and announced nationwide non-enforcement for SBRs, SBSs, silencers and AOWs. ATF specifically says it will no longer enforce:
prior approval before making;
NFA registration;
The associated unregistered-firearm prohibitions;
Interstate transportation of unregistered covered NFA firearms under §5861(j); and
“the NFA requirement to mark all NFA firearms.” (ATF)
That last point matters for people wondering about the traditional extra NFA maker engraving.
The October 9 policy does not repeal §5842(a). It is an enforcement policy. But Virginia does not independently require that engraving. Virginia asks whether the firearm is possessed in compliance with federal law.
And Virginia’s history makes a narrow reading of that phrase harder to justify. The Commonwealth once maintained its own SBR/SBS registration system, intentionally eliminated it, and later chose federal compliance as the test for civilian possession.
So consider the narrow hypothetical:
A Virginia resident is otherwise lawful to possess firearms, is unquestionably protected by the federal injunction, has an existing commercially manufactured firearm with its original serial number intact, and possesses it in an SBR/SBS configuration without a Form 1, NFRTR registration, or additional NFA maker engraving.
There is a very strong argument that §18.2-303.1 protects that possession.
Why?
Because Virginia chose to say:
“possessed in compliance with federal law”
Instead of:
“possessed only if registered under the NFA.”
Those are not the same sentence.
Could a Virginia prosecutor argue that federal statutes remaining technically “on the books” still defeat the exception? Sure. But they would have to explain why a Virginia court should read Form 1, NFRTR and engraving requirements into a criminal statute when the General Assembly didn't put those words there — particularly where the federal government is either judicially prohibited from enforcing the relevant provisions against the defendant or has expressly ceased enforcing them.
And if the criminal statute genuinely supports competing reasonable interpretations, Virginia’s rule of lenity becomes relevant as well.
The biggest caveat is that no published Virginia appellate decision has yet applied §18.2-303.1 to this exact post-2026 federal situation. So nobody should confuse “very strong statutory argument” with “Virginia Supreme Court already decided this.”
But the historical record matters:
Virginia once required its own registration.
Virginia repealed it.
Virginia subsequently chose federal compliance as the civilian exception.
Virginia never recreated its own Form 1/NFRTR/engraving requirements.
