All those NFA items will most likely be illegal in Michigan as state law only allows them if federal tax stamp is obtained.

Suppressors are so common in AZ and ATF stretched so thin, I just can't see anyone getting in trouble unless they're committing some crime while in possession of a suppressor of dubious provenance. Seems to me there's enough confusion on the issue, that the amount of time this takes to get cleared up will end up constituting some kind of amnesty or gray area.

quote:

Originally posted by Mars_Attacks:

Suppressors just got ruled as arms. That's a good thing, otherwise they could just get banned altogether. Since they are serial numbered, it can be recovered and returned in case of theft.

I can see the utility of that, but the fact remains that it doesn’t seem to avoid bans at all since 8 states plus DC currently ban suppressors today. If all 50 states decided to do so, would SCOTUS even take the case or just defer to states’ rights?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
I'll be indescribably delighted to see my instincts fail me on this, but...

If they did, how would your feelings on 11.5" AR barrels change?

quote:

Originally posted by gjgalligan:
All those NFA items will most likely be illegal in Michigan as state law only allows them if federal tax stamp is obtained.

These states sure like to pick and choose what laws they like. Michigan allows medical marijuana against federal law but would choose to go against federal law on suppressors.

How could they require something that hopefully would not exist? What state was it that wanted to make every bullet require an engraved serial number yet there was no facility which could do such a thing? +

quote:

Originally posted by gjgalligan:
All those NFA items will most likely be illegal in Michigan as state law only allows them if federal tax stamp is obtained.

AI Trigger Alert:
I asked Gemini the same question about Colorado law; the response:

“The Practical Impact: If Congress removed silencers from the NFA (or deregulated them federally): Federal tax stamps and NFA registration forms would no longer exist. Because federal licenses would vanish and no state permit exists, Colorado residents would lose the ability to invoke the affirmative defense under C.R.S. § 18-12-102(5). By default, the state classification of silencers as prohibited ‘dangerous weapons’ would take over, making possession a felony under state law unless Colorado lawmakers proactively amended state law.”

In how many other states would something similar be true?

Fingers crossed the Trump DOJ does the right thing here.

What a shot of liberty it would be to buy a rifle/shotgun true to the original design and not an arbitrary 16"/18" bureaucratic dictate.

I’ve asked it before, and yes the suppressor is defined by federal law as a firearm, so you still have to go through 4473, even if the NFA is ultimately ruled unconstitutional. See here under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(C).

quote:

Originally posted by FenderBender:
If they did, how would your feelings on 11.5" AR barrels change?

What do you think are my feelings about such?

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
I’ve asked it before, and yes the suppressor is defined by federal law as a firearm, so you still have to go through 4473, even if the NFA is ultimately ruled unconstitutional. See here under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(C).

Interesting thought from sigfreund, if these were removed from NFA, and, not classed as a firearm, then would they not be covered by the constitution under 2A, they would become a bolt on part, and thus could states ban them without any particular recourse that guns rights advocates could challenge the constitutionality of that ban....

If so, might it be best to keep them under 4473, as a firearm? since all blue states would immediately enact a ban...

Less red tape would be a good thing. I hope this doesn’t create any new silliness.

Suppressors right now are basically like a firearm but with extra paperwork and about 48 hour wait. Best I’ve ever known in my 25 years of buying firearms and related.

quote:

Michigan allows medical marijuana against federal law but would choose to go against federal law on suppressors.

Michigan has recreational use of marijuana legal, you can grow your own.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Something doesn't seem right about this. I mean, bang, just like that. One minute, it's a mountain of paperwork and bullshit, and the next minute, it's "Never mind, its cool. Chop your barrels, get your cans and you don't need to do all the other stuff."

As far as I'm concerned nothing has yet changed. Why does it seem like I'm the only one who's suspicious?

Understandable. How many times were we promised the hearing protection act?

quote:

Originally posted by walker77:
How many times were we promised the hearing protection act?

Completely two different things. One is a court battle, with judges, and no doubt eventually SCOTUS justices, making rulings. The other is lip services from members of Congress.

Everything I've read on this indicates if there is not an appeal by the federal government, suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns will no longer be considered part of the NFA if you are a current or future member of any of these organizations (the plaintiffs). Another article I read indicated it applied to 15 states covered by that district.

• Gun Owners of America
• Gun Owners Foundation
• FPC Action Foundation
• The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms or
• The Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc.

As can be seen in the ongoing discussion, this is not cut-and-dried.

I have a feeling it may be quite a while before we know anything definite.

It's like romance: Experience with it tends to make one cautious.

From a firearms attorney and Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) board member:

https://johnpierceesq.com/unde...dation-v-batfe-case/

quote:

How could they require something that hopefully would not exist? What state was it that wanted to make every bullet require an engraved serial number yet there was no facility which could do such a thing? +

California. It was microstamping and involved the case, not the bullet. No technology exists. But I believe it’s coming back next year.

quote:

Originally posted by motorheadjohn:
From a firearms attorney and Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) board member:

https://johnpierceesq.com/unde...dation-v-batfe-case/

I encourage all interested parties to read this article.

I'm in the process of creating an SBS. I'm awaiting the determination on the proposed rule changes- namely the engraving and CLEO notification provisions. Beyond that, I am not counting at all on the outcome of this lawsuit to have any impact on the process of creating my SBS.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Something doesn't seem right about this. I mean, bang, just like that. One minute, it's a mountain of paperwork and bullshit, and the next minute, it's "Never mind, its cool. Chop your barrels, get your cans and you don't need to do all the other stuff."

As far as I'm concerned nothing has yet changed. Why does it seem like I'm the only one who's suspicious?

This is absolutely the boat I am rowing but take a scroll down YouTube and everyone seems to believe that it is a done deal next week.

Granted the typical click bait annoying folks like the guns and gadgets dude and the armed scholar are saying it’s done but quite a few more even keeled folks are pretty confident that the NFA is toast.

I am not so confident. Sure would like to see it go away. Have a suppressor to buy and want to do an 11.5” upper to slap on a lower I already have but am waiting to see if in the least that engraving rule goes away.

Would love for the NFA to go away but don’t see it happening.