r/gunpolitics • u/Megalith70 • Aug 13 '26
Trump Admin not appealing NFA ruling.
https://x.com/gunowners/status/2087723449372283239?s=46&t=hN6Lm0vFUB8KsGy1OlHZowThis is massive.
104
Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
[deleted]
59
u/Megalith70 Aug 13 '26
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.
43
u/ToastedSoup Aug 13 '26
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
42
4
u/fender_blues Aug 13 '26
Is the coverage on an individual or per item basis? I have two cans, one is from silencershop and the other is not.
12
u/SamAreAye Aug 13 '26
Coverage is for transactions made wwith the company. Just join GOA for $25. It covers transactions made involving you.
4
u/bigbigdummie Aug 13 '26
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.
7
19
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie Aug 13 '26
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.
11
u/SamAreAye Aug 13 '26
Only for your business with them.
Just pay the $25 to join GOA, already.
9
u/ThePenultimateNinja Aug 13 '26
Just pay the $25 to join GOA, already.
Right? It's the least we can do, considering what they have done for us.
35
u/witchouse Aug 13 '26
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.
24
Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 21 '26
[deleted]
27
u/gakflex Aug 13 '26
A pretty cheap and easy way to just be sure would be to simply join GOA or FPC. A few bucks a month.
21
25
u/merc08 Aug 13 '26
Having to pay a company a subscription for our Rights is some straight up bullshit.
19
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie Aug 13 '26
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.
-2
u/Girafferage Aug 13 '26
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.
21
u/Chewbacca_The_Wookie Aug 13 '26
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.
5
u/evilblackdog Aug 13 '26
I wonder if this whole thing will just cause them to drop the NFA entirely.
4
u/SamAreAye Aug 13 '26
Seems likely. Only a matter of time before somebody sues for the same rights his neighbor has.
3
u/ThePenultimateNinja Aug 13 '26
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.
3
u/QuinceDaPence Aug 13 '26
This is how all of these start. Look at FRTs, same way, they started with a certain companies, then quickly expanded to everyone.
5
u/akenthusiast Aug 13 '26
It's because of Trump v. CASA. An appellate court judge can't grant a universal injunction anymore
2
18
u/steelhelix Aug 13 '26
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.
8
u/CaptainFirecrotch Aug 13 '26
So I can put a stock on my krink now?
5
u/steelhelix Aug 13 '26
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.
2
0
u/ThePenultimateNinja Aug 13 '26
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.
5
-5
2
u/De_Facto Aug 13 '26
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.
2
45
u/OcSpeed Aug 13 '26
How do we get this nationwide?
66
u/akenthusiast Aug 13 '26
People in different circuits need to sue
32
u/hitemlow Aug 13 '26
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.
6
u/BackToTheCottage Aug 13 '26
Yeah I assume this defacto monopoly is gonna trigger a lot of gun shops suing to also get the opportunity to sell silencers.
14
u/specter491 Aug 13 '26
Buy from SS or join GOA. That's it.
11
u/Thee_Sinner Aug 13 '26
Still restricted to 27 states that dont have their own bans that this doesnt overturn
7
0
u/afopatches Aug 15 '26
That is not "nationwide". 27 states is not "nationwide".
2
u/specter491 Aug 15 '26
The injunction is nationwide but your state prohibits it unregistered NFA items. That's different
2
u/backfire_robin Aug 13 '26
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
53
u/alwaus Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 13 '26
In 25 years we went from featureless, assualt weapon ban, 10 round limit magazines to suppressed, short barreled, giggle switched home built firearms.
14
u/BackToTheCottage Aug 13 '26
Only took less than two terms of Trump.
3
u/EnterpriseDoorGunner Aug 14 '26
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?
28
u/6680j Aug 13 '26
California over here feeling left out
19
7
7
u/milochuisael Aug 13 '26
East coast twin Massachusetts too
3
u/deathsythe Aug 13 '26
And RI, don't forget about us.
2
u/milochuisael Aug 13 '26
You guys were good until recently
2
u/deathsythe Aug 14 '26
Literally less than 5 years to go from freedom minus NFA to no different from any other blue state.
22
18
u/masterkorey7 Aug 13 '26
What does this mean for SBR's long term? How long before we can throw a stock on our pistols and not be illegal?
22
u/steelhelix Aug 13 '26
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.
15
u/leedle1234 Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 13 '26
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.
7
u/Megalith70 Aug 13 '26
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.
15
u/nico_juro Aug 13 '26
So, can I just buy a suppresor now?
10
u/CraaZero Aug 13 '26
As of an hour and two minutes ago, that's what SilencerShop promised to do in their letter
5
u/Hairy_Heart8917 Aug 13 '26
Well except for those 15 states where they still make you fill it out
6
u/CraaZero Aug 13 '26
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
7
u/ThePenultimateNinja Aug 13 '26
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.
4
2
u/texas_accountant_guy Aug 16 '26
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.
93
u/stopbotheringme1776 Aug 13 '26
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.
53
u/Megalith70 Aug 13 '26
I’ve already seen people bringing up bump stocks.
-44
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/deathsythe Aug 13 '26
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.
1
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/deathsythe Aug 13 '26
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.
2
9
-38
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
-22
u/WeHaveTheMeeps Aug 13 '26
But also it’s not just bump stocks. Dude literally did a whole speech about taking away guns without due process.
4
u/floopyscoopy Aug 13 '26
Maybe not IN HISTORY, late 1700s might have a word with you, but credit where it’s due
2
u/Time-Object5661 Aug 13 '26
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
-43
u/apogeeman2 Aug 13 '26
You’re drunk.
12
u/WeHaveTheMeeps Aug 13 '26
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.
-5
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/WeHaveTheMeeps Aug 13 '26
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.
-2
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/WeHaveTheMeeps Aug 13 '26
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.
11
u/ScionR Aug 13 '26
Watch people on gun subreddits still say:
“but he banned bump stocks” or “take the guns first”
8
7
7
25
u/masterffl-com Aug 13 '26
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.
22
u/Megalith70 Aug 13 '26
A ruling from SCOTUS likely wouldn’t have been on the 2A either. It would be undone by reinstating the tax as well.
5
u/throwawaynoways Aug 13 '26
Right this is still all under the umbrella of taxes not 2A specifically.
6
u/GWOSNUBVET Aug 13 '26
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.
10
u/Itchy-Cup-8755 Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 13 '26
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
7
u/CallsignFlorida Aug 13 '26
Everyone is focused on Form4 stuff… which it is still a net positive… but what about Form1 stuff?
13
u/specter491 Aug 13 '26
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)
6
5
u/Itchy-Cup-8755 Aug 13 '26
i suppose maybe the same logic? not nfa=not required form 1? idk the language of the law for it specifically, though. but 100%
5
u/km0099 Aug 13 '26
Cool, now can we just figure out how to overrule the fact that suppressors are illegal in my state??
5
-1
u/burner456987123 Aug 13 '26
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.
13
u/Megalith70 Aug 13 '26
This is a shit take.
-1
u/burner456987123 Aug 13 '26
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.
10
u/Megalith70 Aug 13 '26
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.
-11
u/AlchemicalToad Aug 13 '26
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.
18
u/Megalith70 Aug 13 '26
I disagree. His administration in term 2 has been much more pro 2A since the start.
-9
u/AlchemicalToad Aug 13 '26
This Admin isn’t in support of 2A, because they aren’t in support of the Constitution. They are pandering.
-4
u/darkstar541 Aug 13 '26
Why not appeal to SCOTUS then and make it nationwide?
5
u/Megalith70 Aug 13 '26
There’s no guarantee higher courts won’t reverse the district court.
0
u/darkstar541 Aug 13 '26
The gov has to appeal for that to happen, and I doubt this SCOTUS would. The iron is hot!
4
-5
u/Anonymous_Bozo Aug 13 '26
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.
14
u/Megalith70 Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 13 '26
It applies to the named plaintiffs, so if you join one of gun groups or use Silencer Shop, it will apply nationwide.
7
u/Anonymous_Bozo Aug 13 '26
A right that depends on membership in a particular group is not a right.
8
4
-1
u/Hairy_Heart8917 Aug 13 '26
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
7
-3
u/burner456987123 Aug 13 '26
7
u/Megalith70 Aug 13 '26
Name a president that has been more beneficial to the 2A than Trump.
3
u/burner456987123 Aug 13 '26
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.”
8
u/Megalith70 Aug 13 '26
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.
-2
u/burner456987123 Aug 13 '26
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.
9
u/Megalith70 Aug 13 '26
Accurately describing what Pretti did is not an attack on our 2A rights.
3
u/burner456987123 Aug 13 '26
🤣 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.
6
u/Megalith70 Aug 13 '26
Alex Pretti had multiple run ins with ICE while repeatedly interfering with their operations. I don’t care when commies get smoked.
5
u/burner456987123 Aug 13 '26
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.
6
u/Megalith70 Aug 13 '26
The 1A allows you to interfere with federal law enforcement?
→ More replies (0)
-15
Aug 13 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/bownt1 Aug 13 '26
what is it like being mad all the time?
-1
u/DontRememberOldPass Aug 13 '26
What is it like being totally fine with a pedophile getting away with harming children?
3
u/bownt1 Aug 13 '26
yawn
0
u/DontRememberOldPass Aug 13 '26
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.
2
u/bownt1 Aug 13 '26
why has the video not been released
0
u/DontRememberOldPass Aug 13 '26
Because he is in charge of releasing the evidence.
1
u/bownt1 Aug 13 '26
singularly?
0
u/DontRememberOldPass Aug 13 '26
Spot on. It seems all of his supporters seem to lack the most basic understanding of the world around them.
162
u/specter491 Aug 13 '26
Wow. We did it. We won.