Seems to me that the ATF did a wonderful job of clarifying things, but things are still pretty complicated depending on people’s situation. For those who live in:

Free America, where state law is completely silent on NFA items - Rock on you lucky guys and gals. Know that while I’m jealous I support you and hope that you and others legally buy enough cool stuff that some day SCOTUS uses in common use to make impossible for even the true commie dirtbag states to infringe.

in a “tied” state where the law requires that you register or comply with federal law *and* are a member on one of the plaintiff organizations so you are covered by the legal injunction - check with a local attorney, but you might be okay since a federal court says the law doesn’t apply to you.

in a “tied” state *and* you aren’t a member. Join silly, and check with an attorney in your state to see if this gets you covered.

in true commie shitholes, which forbid NFA items on their own regardless of what the feds do, cheer for our brothers who can buy cool stuff, hope they buy lots, and consider joining organizations which will fight to get the state laws ruled unconstitutional and enjoined. (And of course consider moving to Free America.)

As always, nothing is ever simple, but it sure looks one heck of sunnier than it did on Thursday.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: slosig,

Thanks for that explanation, jljones.

The video I linked above was released yesterday, Saturday, the day after Friday which was when the ATF letter was released. The two actual lawyers in the video specifically discussed the letter and other issues that can be important to owners of suppressors, etc. I assumed you were referring to that video because you directly quoted a post that directly quoted mine. It also seemed as though you were not yourself familiar with what it covered and by whom because you seemed to be saying that it was just another effort to grab attention by reporting speculation at best, and misinformation at worst. Have you watched it now? If so, what do you think?

Like or not in this day and age, despite having a written word available someplace on the Internet it’s often useful to have knowledgeable explanations of what those words mean. As for “breaking news,” you make a good point that could apply to countless posts and entire threads other places where people regularly go for information. It’s very common to learn first about innumerable subjects from sources other than where the news originates—and very often initial reports are wrong.

Thanks again.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:
^^^^^^
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.

My suggestion to you is to take a helpful approach to begin with, rather than being harshly critical of some members, with vague comments, and then explaining your meaning only after being prodded to do so.

The courtesy of an acknowledgement of my suggestion would be appreciated.

Acknowledgement of your suggestion

Acknowledgement of your acknowledgement.

Yesterday on day 1 of the new NFA world we find ourselves in I liberated a Sig 552 from its feaux suppressor extension!

With the assistance of a dremel and a lot of time it is now returned to its natural glorious state.

Thank God for President Trump and the waterfall of winning.
Now get out and vote in the midterms so we can enjoy more winning.

Mississippi is one of the 15 states that need to pass new legislation to be covered.


I'm in no hurry and will not take a chance even though it is highly unlikely anyone here would be prosecuted on state charges for jumping the gun. I have always followed the rules regarding NFA matters since getting my first stamp back in 1983 and intend to keep it that way.

This was posted on Facebook by Senator Jeremy England back in August.

Mississippi to update laws on firearm suppressors after federal court ruling


"I have had several messages and emails about the recent federal court case regarding firearm suppressors and why the court’s decision does not apply in Mississippi. For those that do not know, the court case ruled against the ATF in finding that they can no longer require fingerprints, photos, and ATF Form 4 before a person is allowed to purchase and possess a firearm suppressor. Many states that had updated state laws and/or joined the lawsuit no longer have to follow this tedious federal process as of today (though there may be an appeal). I agree with the court’s decision, and I believe Mississippians should have the right to purchase and possess (and transfer) suppressors the same as regular firearms. This is extremely important for hunters and firearm enthusiasts, and especially so for veterans and the hearing impaired.
To give a brief history on suppressor legislation in Mississippi, the Senate passed SB 2316 earlier this year, which amended section 97-37-31 of the Mississippi Code to allow citizens to make, manufacture, sell, and possess suppressors as long as it did not violate Federal law. This bill passed the Senate unanimously, but it died in the House Committee without a vote.
In 2023, the legislature passed and the Governor signed HB912, the “Suppressor Freedom Act.” This bill made the manufacturing, selling, and possessing of suppressors legal for Mississippi citizens as long as the suppressor was made in Mississippi.
I say all of that to say this: the Mississippi legislature is clearly in favor of allowing citizens of this state to buy and own suppressors. Our legislative history proves that. Still, this issue has been a litigated for quite some time, and it likely will continue to be an issue until the legal avenues are exhausted. However, now that there is a favorable federal ruling stating that ATF Form 4 is not necessary for suppressors, I can assure you that there will be legislation next year to address this for Mississippians and to allow our citizens to join the other states that can now purchase suppressors the same as they purchase firearms (i.e., the normal checking process without the need for fingerprints, photographs, and ATF Form 4). I will support this legislation next session, and I will sponsor the legislation if I have the opportunity. Mississippi is Pro Second Amendment, and we will make sure our laws are updated as soon as possible to reflect the federal court’s recent ruling against the ATF. We have already shown that we have the votes and the support in the legislature to make this happen. And we will.


Edited to Add: Lots of questions about “why wait until next year?” The reason is that our Mississippi Legislature is a part-time legislature. We are only in session for 90-days (early January through early April). We cannot take legislative action unless we are in session. Legislators cannot call ourselves back for a special session - only the Governor can do that. Special Sessions are rare, and they cost the taxpayers additional money. This is the reason nothing can be done now. I assure you that I am not just sitting around and doing nothing. I have a real, regular job, just like most of my legislative colleagues. And though the legislature is “part-time,” we all (for the most part) still perform legislative duties and requirements throughout the year. I take meetings often, and I prepare for the next session. I also have committee hearings. This is an issue we will work on getting resolved in the 2027 session (which begins in January). The purpose of this post is to share information and to let all interested know that the legislature has proven over the past few years that we are in favor of eliminating restrictions on suppressors, which is to provide some backing to my statement that I expect we will get this resolved as soon as possible. I hope this helps answer some of the questions about why we cannot act on this now."

I will Form 1 the next lower I stick my 12" Bore Buddy upper on because Georgia STILL requires NFA items to have a stamp. Form 1's are now ridiculously fast because of the 4473 rule as of late.

We'll see how fast I can get the .22 can approved for it. I'll just buy one I see at the local gun store.

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:
Mississippi is one of the 15 states that need to pass new legislation to be covered.

Best of good fortune with that going forward.

In looking at the 15 state list, I could, if I lived there, hope that some of them would eliminate the state restrictions. Unfortunately, I can’t say that about my state and won’t be surprised if they respond by actually making things more restrictive. But if anyone wants to keep their fingers crossed that I’m wrong, please do.

Celebration time, come on!

My first legal unregistered SBR: BCM 11.5 BFH VLTOR VIS3-12 Upper - PSA EPT Lower w/ VLTOR Modstock.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Celebration time, come on!

Keep them coming!

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Celebration time, come on!

Go, you! Now, suppressor time!

I have a butt stock coming for an 11.5" former pistol with a Cry Havoc takedown. I'm confident that there'll be at least a few more states fixing things, soon.

quote:

Originally posted by redstone:
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.

An FFL friend who has an SOT and is very conservative with rules, plus the range/transfer dealer that I use in Northern VA are all transferring via 4473. I'm doing my part to complicate any future changes by getting a few items. I noticed some dealers jumped their prices a bit in anticipation of demand. I can accept that given we're netting out positive.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei:

I have a butt stock coming for an 11.5" former pistol with a Cry Havoc takedown. I'm confident that there'll be at least a few more states fixing things, soon.

I was just wondering about this last night as I have an AR pistol and the thought crossed my mind about how all this would effect my ar and would it now be legal to put the stock on it now.

Guessing that it would now be legal in Texas.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:
Mississippi is one of the 15 states that need to pass new legislation to be covered.

Best of good fortune with that going forward.

Thanks, sigfreund.
Fortunately, Mississippi is pro-Second Amendment. It should be smooth sailing.

I hope things work out for the folks in Colorado. I understand your concerns.

My first unregistered SBR



And my apologies for the size of this photo

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Celebration time, come on!

She's a beauty. Congrats.

quote:

Originally posted by arabiancowboy:
My first unregistered SBR

Nice!!

quote:

Originally posted by Mustang-PaPa:

I was just wondering about this last night as I have an AR pistol and the thought crossed my mind about how all this would effect my ar and would it now be legal to put the stock on it now.

Guessing that it would now be legal in Texas.

Yes, sir-we have no state-level prohibitions, and fed guidance has been resolved on making and marking. It's now a matter if you want to, or what butt stock do you choose.

I'll jump on the "we really need congress to act" bandwagon here.

Here's my analogy:

You pass a cop car going 10 over. He doesn't stop you. It's still illegal to go 10 over. He used enforcement discretion and chose not to stop you.

You do this every day. One day, there's a different cop sitting there. You get a ticket.

The cop is the ATF. The different cop is a future ATF.

I believe there is a distinction to be drawn for those covered under the injunction (Silencer Shop customers and GOA members) because the ATF has been court ordered to not apply NFA registration to those people.

The rest of us, however, who the ATF has stated they are using their enforcement discretion to not investigate or prosecute, are really at the ATF's whim on it. I think that this opens the door to get something pushed through the legislature, but until and unless that happens, tomorrow's ATF is free to do what it wants to and with you.

I've also seen a ton of bad advice in my state, which has a couple very simple statutes that state "a person shall not knowingly possess a (firearm suppressor)(short barreled rifle)(short barreled shotgun) in this state in violation of federal law." Our state is marked as "free" on a lot of maps but a reading of the plain language of the statute says that possessing these items while not properly registered here is a crime (a felony no less) under state law.

This is all very positive, but folks need to take some time to think and weigh their potential exposure versus having their item(s) in a few weeks. Not that it matters right now since the dealers have been overrun.

I was in a gunshop yesterday, asked about the suppressor deal in WI. The guy said, as of now, no change in Wisconsin. I think it would take a change in State law, not happening now.

He did seem to elude that the paperwork was clearing fast. I’m not interested the marked at the moment, but may bite in the future.