And just like that, the flood gate is opened. Every vendor and their mother are selling SBRs and suppressors via 4473 only. What a great time for freedom and to remind folks how dark it would be, had the Kackle won.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
What a great time for freedom

And for gun parts dealers, suppressor shops, stock manufacturers, threaded barrel factories, and AR upper makers, as well as hacksaw/bandsaw blade companies. Q4 revenue is going to see a huge jump.

But while you're celebrating this weekend, pour one out for the homeys at pistol brace manufacturers like SB Tactical and KAK, whose businesses just tanked.

quote:

Originally posted by benny6:
So am I to assume that in FL, I can now install a rifle buttstock onto my AR pistol and make a legal SBR for my own use, that I already own, without any NFA paperwork now?

I can also now buy 14.5" AR uppers and convert my personal rifle (not to be sold) into a proper M4?

Tony.

State law says ney ney

Florida Statute § 790.221(3) RELATED TO SBR, SBS, AOW

Florida Statute § 790.221(3) states (in summary) it is a second-degree felony to have an unregistered SBR, SBS or AOW. If you want certainty before you build or buy one, talk to a Florida attorney that specializes in firearms. A stamped SBR remains the clearest fit for Florida's federal-law exception.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
That’s something that should be carved in stone someplace where everyone could see it.

But would they read it?
Probably not.

What you quoted, I was surprised to see somehow got posted. It was a reply to KY John Deere on my phone last night and I went over to my PC instead to post what I replied with last night. I don't know how, but me being on my phone browsing the internet earlier somehow posted what I had started to reply with. It wasn't my intent to keep stomping on KYJohnDeere, so my apologies to him, and I deleted it.

quote:

Originally posted by RogueJSK:
But while you're celebrating this weekend, pour one out for the homeys at pistol brace manufacturers like SB Tactical and KAK, whose businesses just tanked.

Actually, I think KAK is poised to do really well out of this. In the last year, they targeted the budget end of the suppressor mount and muzzle device market and they've been absolutely killing it with the price to quality ratio. I have a number of KAK suppressor mounts and highly recommend them. They're gonna be just fine. SB Tactical, on the other hand....

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

State law says ney ney

Florida Statute § 790.221(3) RELATED TO SBR, SBS, AOW

Florida Statute § 790.221(3) states (in summary) it is a second-degree felony to have an unregistered SBR, SBS or AOW. If you want certainty before you build or buy one, talk to a Florida attorney that specializes in firearms. A stamped SBR remains the clearest fit for Florida's federal-law exception.

790.221
(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.

No need for summaries as they are short to begin with. Plus, it's harder to mess up a direct quote.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

State law says ney ney

Florida Statute § 790.221(3) RELATED TO SBR, SBS, AOW

Florida Statute § 790.221(3) states (in summary) it is a second-degree felony to have an unregistered SBR, SBS or AOW. If you want certainty before you build or buy one, talk to a Florida attorney that specializes in firearms. A stamped SBR remains the clearest fit for Florida's federal-law exception.

790.221
(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.

No need for summaries as they are short to begin with. Plus, it's harder to mess up a direct quote.

#3 either makes SBR's legal or just clouds the waters. Hopefully we'll have more clarity soon.

^^ Federal Law and/or 'provisions of federal law' with respect to that FL statute have not changed. Nothing 'really' changes until Congress takes legislative action.

I will delete my previous comment as well although failures to read are not limited to this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
I will delete my previous comment as well although failures to read are not limited to this thread.

Thank you, sir.

You know, I read that here somewhere once or twice before and it was excellent enough to stick, so I think it's probably signature-worthy. May it perpetuate.

In the interests of contributing and staying relevant, here's some input from Mark Smith. I appreciate his perspective on legal stuff.

I did some digging and found the following on FFL Safe

In a tied state, the law says something like “allowed if registered under federal law” or “allowed if lawful under federal law.” So does an item held unregistered under ATF’s non-enforcement policy count? We checked every state’s statute text, and our conclusion is no. ATF has stopped enforcing registration, but Congress hasn’t repealed it, and ATF itself still calls unregistered items contraband. In a tied state, treat an unregistered item as illegal under state law. ATF still accepts Form 1 and Form 4 on a voluntary basis, so register before you make or receive the item. Federal law generally doesn’t let you register one after the fact.

For FFLs, this isn’t academic. Federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(b)(2)) already prohibits you from transferring a firearm in violation of the buyer’s state or local law. In a tied state, transfer only an item with an approved Form 4 (or an approved Form 3 to another SOT). ATF’s policy doesn’t change that, and getting it wrong can cost you your license.
“Registered” vs. “compliance” wording: why it matters

Tied states use two basic kinds of wording, and the difference changes how strong the argument is for an unregistered item.

“Registered” or “tax stamp” wording. The law protects only an item that is actually registered. An unregistered item is, by definition, not registered, so there is no gray area. This group includes Alaska, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Ohio, Oregon, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin.
“Compliance” or “lawful under federal law” wording. The law protects an item that is lawful, authorized, or in compliance with federal law. Some people will argue that ATF’s non-enforcement makes an unregistered item “lawful.” We disagree. Congress hasn’t repealed the registration rules, ATF still calls unregistered items contraband, and courts have held that federal agents tolerating conduct doesn’t make it lawful. No state court has accepted that argument yet.

Either way, our bottom line is the same: in a tied state, treat an unregistered item as illegal under state law

Yes, I arrived at the same conclusion, and there are organizations such as FPC which are working to rectify the matter.

Noted here: https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...580074225#2580074225

quote:

Originally posted by mark60:

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
790.221
(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.

No need for summaries as they are short to begin with. Plus, it's harder to mess up a direct quote.

#3 either makes SBR's legal or just clouds the waters. Hopefully we'll have more clarity soon.

I would argue an absence of federal law provisions does not invalidate (3) because in the absence of provisions a person would still be in compliance with any and all provisions under federal law. Furthermore, by not implementing any additional restrictions or requirements beyond federal law, the Florida Legislature clearly intended to mirror federal law.

If the federal injunction doesn't apply to you, then you should not attach your AR pistol upper to your AR rifle lower in Florida. Oops, I better join GOA before I do it again with my firearms purchased from PSA.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Oops, I better join GOA before I do it again with my firearms purchased from PSA.

Not suggesting you shouldn’t join the GOA, but according to what I understand these attorneys are saying, the action by the ATF to suspend the requirement for NFA registrations now applies to everyone, not just to parties associated with the suits that resulted in the court ruling.

Theirs is a good discussion about other factors as well such as having items removed from the registry and what could happen in the future under a new political administration which would simply involve a rule change by different bureaucrats.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuWHWgye9iU

And of course as they also point out, local and state laws still apply, such as in Commirado.

I believe that’s what I said specifically with respect to Florida. You’ve quoted me completely out of context. I literally quoted Florida Statutes, the sentence before the one you selected says Florida as does the preceding paragraph, and my location says Southwest Florida.

In my exuberance over the ATF’s guidance, I a mated an AR upper equipped with a 14.7” barrel and non-pinned and welded flash hider to an AR rifle lower thus making my very first SBR. That was dandy under ATF guidance, but not Florida law. Since the rifle was purchased from PSA, one of the plaintiffs covered by the injunction, the only thing I’m missing to make what I did legal in Florida is GOA membership. With GOA membership and the PSA firearm, I’d be in complete compliance under provisions of federal law for lawful ownership and possession of an SBR and thus the exception to FL Statute 790.221(1) under 790.221(3) would apply to me.

Here in VA. We were advised that the federal law is still in place. But no longer enforced. Therefore Va. Law can be enforced. So we should still do form 4 until the law is clarified / removed.

Well, it did occur to me that I misunderstood your post, but felt it didn’t hurt to point out that people in free jurisdictions may take advantage of the ATF’s rule change without being a member of the GOA or otherwise a party to the court ruling.

I also agree with P220 Smudge that taking advantage of the current rules is the best way of ensuring that they don’t get changed three years from now. Look at it this way: The suppressor you buy now isn’t just for your benefit, but also helps everyone else who is taking advantage of the situation today or who will be wanting one in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Oops, I better join GOA before I do it again with my firearms purchased from PSA.

Not suggesting you shouldn’t join the GOA, but according to what I understand these attorneys are saying, the action by the ATF to suspend the requirement for NFA registrations now applies to everyone, not just to parties associated with the suits that resulted in the court ruling.

No need to understand anything from second-hand source. Go directly to the horse’s mouth. ATF Director Robert Cekada’s Open Letter on October 9, 2026 plainly stated so.

quote:

Consequently, effective October 9, 2026, ATF will no longer require individuals to seek ATF approval under the NFA before making or transferring short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and “any other weapon[s]” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e). ATF will also no longer require such items to be registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. These policies apply uniformly to anyone otherwise subject to these requirements, not just to the plaintiffs in the litigation.

^^^^^^
Yep. Relying on the “BREAKING NEWS” bullshit videos is no substitute for the word.

I’m also pretty stoked to live in a free state like KY. Commie states like Florida that have people in fear of actually following federal law is no bueno.

It’s also a pretty good example of WHY conservatives lose all the time. This is an opportunity to set the gun grabbers back a generation but in reading this thread we are already fumbling it.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
in reading this thread we are already fumbling it.

“Fumbling” what and in what way (in reference to this specific issue)? What should we be doing differently?

And how does whatever fumbling is going on in reference to this issue affect conservatives’ losing in other ways?
Based on what I have learned from countless other threads the only reason why conservatives lose elections is because of fraud, not because of anything we—including our leaders—do or don’t do. That means we’re in no way responsible for what happens to us.

Well, first off stop watching YouTube “Breaking News” as your source of information. This ATF guidance was published at 1530 eastern time on Friday. Based on the ACTUAL guidance, look at the 36 hours of bad advice that has been handed out in this thread.

Hypothetically, what happens if “Moms Demand Action” judge shops and files an injunction to stop the ATF ruling. What we do in the 96 hours or so that we might have available will shape our legal defense for years to come. It also nullifies the chance of enforcement of parts of the NFA for decades to come.

And lastly-

The internet- “Abolish the NFA. Haven’t you ever heard ‘shall not be infringed’”
ATF effectively abolishes the NFA
Also the internet “uhhh, you need to get a permission slip from Daddy to have Rights”

If you believe that releasing this at 3:30 on a Friday was a coincidence, I have some ocean front property to sell you in Phoenix.