You can read our new factsheet here:

https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/The-Bloodbath-That-Never-Came-SAF-v7.pdf

For the 2A crowd tracking the ATF NFA shift: federal enforcement paused, but Wisconsin statutes still tie legality to NFA registration — here's the short version and a 2-minute email template for your state legislators.

On Friday, Oct 9, DOJ and ATF announced they will no longer require approval or registration under the NFA for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs, nationwide. This follows the Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF / Jensen v. ATF ruling in August. (The $200 tax on these items was already cut to $0 on Jan 1, 2026.)

But there's a big catch for Wisconsin. ATF's change is an enforcement policy. It doesn't repeal the NFA, and ATF says it doesn't change state law. Under Wis. Stat. § 941.298 (suppressors) and § 941.28 (SBRs and SBSs), possession is a Class H felony (up to 6 years and $10,000) unless you've "complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872." No Wisconsin court has ruled on how that applies now.

Until Madison fixes this, don't assume an unregistered suppressor or SBR is legal in Wisconsin. ATF is still processing Form 1s and Form 4s voluntarily, "because many state laws require individuals to register NFA firearms." Don't deregister anything you already own, since ATF says those items can't be re-registered later. You still need a Form 20 to take an SBR or SBS across state lines.

What you can do today (2 minutes):

1. Go to https://maps.legis.wisconsin.gov/ and enter your address to find your state Senator and Assembly Representative.
2. Copy the template below, personalize it, and email them.

Email template

Subject: Please update Wis. Stat. §§ 941.298 and 941.28 after the ATF's NFA change

Dear Senator [Last Name] and Representative [Last Name],

I'm a law-abiding gun owner in your district. Please introduce, co-sponsor, or support legislation to amend Wis. Stat. § 941.298(3)(c) and § 941.28(4).

On October 9, 2026, ATF announced it will no longer require federal approval or registration under the National Firearms Act for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns. Wisconsin law makes the legality of these items depend on compliance with federal NFA registration under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5801–5872, so responsible Wisconsin residents are now stuck in legal uncertainty, facing possible Class H felony charges under a federal system that is no longer being enforced.

Please remove the federal registration condition from these statutes so Wisconsin law matches current federal policy and responsible gun owners aren't left facing felony risk.

Thank you. I'd appreciate hearing your position on this.

Sincerely, [Your Name] [Street Address] [City, WI ZIP]

Not legal advice. Talk to an attorney about your own situation.

PolyMaker, a Shanghai company, with operation based in Houston, TX is being sued because they once sponsored and subsequently hired Sean Aranda, a 3D printing YouTuber. Aranda's videos were allowed per YouTube policy at the time and is still covered under protected speech. CA is out of their jurisdiction.

CA, "alleges that Polymaker marketed its filament in such a way as to appeal to gun enthusiasts and thus transform harmless PLA into a regulated “firearm precursor part. So if a metal foundry said their metal is great for firearms manufacturing guess this turns molten aluminum into a firearm.

I support all the hardware-based progress we are making. But honestly, the biggest problems are related to actually BEARING ARMS in public places. What good is it to be able to own a SBR when I can't carry it? Yes, maybe in the case of armed conflict, but that is not likely. I am travelling around the US in my Motorhome and trying to find a way to legally transport and possess while I travel around the US puts me at risk. We need to focus on legislation to protect our reciprocity and our right to bear arms. Which gun rights group is working on this issue the most?

\Update: For those saying you need 60 votes in the senate, I can make a list for you of bills that republicans voted with democrats for to reach 60.*
Democrats managed to get 65 Senate votes for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act in 2022 and 61 for the Respect for Marriage Act. Both required Republican support.

\Update 2: The filibuster is a legitimate obstacle, but since when did needing 60 votes become an excuse to stop fighting? Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. Introduce the legislation. Force the votes. Put every senator on record. Make them explain why they oppose national reciprocity or NFA reform.*
Instead, gun owners are being sold temporary ATF policies that a future administration could reverse. If Republicans won’t even force a vote on the reforms they’ve campaigned on for decades, what exactly are we electing them to do for the 2A?

Republicans control the House, Senate, and White House. We’re approaching two years of unified Republican control, and what do gun owners have to show for it?

No national concealed carry reciprocity. No NFA repeal. No legislation permanently stripping the ATF of its regulatory authority.
Instead, we’re supposed to celebrate a temporary ATF enforcement policy that the next Democratic administration could reverse with the stroke of a pen.

The NFA is still law. An ATF policy change isn’t legislative reform.

So why aren’t the major gun rights influencers and organizations putting Republicans’ feet to the fire instead of continually blaming Democrats who aren’t even in power?

And when the next administration reverses these policies, will GOA and other gun rights organizations come knocking for more donations to fight the exact same battles?
Meanwhile, diesel and food prices are squeezing Americans, and Republicans risk losing their congressional majorities in November.
Republicans have the House, Senate, and presidency. If they can’t deliver lasting Second Amendment reform now, when exactly will they?

At some point, you have to ask whether the gun rights fundraising machine benefits more from keeping the fight alive than actually winning it.
Gun owners deserve legislation, not temporary political theater.

Shooting is a core part of life in rural North Carolina—whether it's protecting your home, keeping a tradition alive, or putting food on the table. But here's the thing: gunfire is loud, and that noise takes a real toll on our hearing, our families, and our pets.

Supressors work. They reduce noise without changing how guns perform, and they're treated like any other hearing protection in states that allow them. But North Carolina's NFA restrictions make getting them unnecessarily complicated for responsible gun owners. I started a petition asking North Carolina to reconsider this policy and align with states that have safely deregulated suppressors.

The evidence is clear—states with fewer suppressor restrictions haven't seen crime increases. What they have seen is more considerate shooting culture and healthier communities. Suppressors should be as accessible as earmuffs at a range.

Has anyone else felt stuck between their right to shoot responsibly and being a considerate neighbor? Or dealt with the hassle of NFA restrictions yourself? If this matters to you too, consider signing and sharing.

My understanding with the ATF announcement yesterday it’s legal for law abiding citizen to make their own suppressors and buy suppressors from gun shops with just a 4473 (state laws still apply). Does that mean 80% suppressors are legal to sell and if so are there any companies doing that?

Is it too early to hope that the courts take a chainsaw to this nonsense law too?

I was wondering if Meta Apex conversion kit is legal for WA state. Would like to buy it but not sure. Thanks for any leads https://metatactical.com

From a real court transcript from a few weeks ago in the New York Court of Appeals, Patterson v. Meta Platforms. Families of victims of the 2022 Buffalo supermarket mass shooting sued multiple social media platforms, insisting that their addictive platform design and algorithms played a role in radicalizing the shooter.

The plaintiff’s attorney is attempting to make the case that the broad addiction to social media itself is what radicalized the shooter (not the specific type of content he was consuming on the platform).

When the judge asked her if addiction to cat videos would make someone more likely to commit a mass shooting, the plaintiff’s attorney stated “yes”.

FPC LEGAL UPDATE: The DOJ has filed a motion to dismiss in our lawsuit challenging national park gun bans, arguing that the OLC opinion on guns in post offices also covers other publicly-accessible federal facilities like those in national parks.