@Shackleford: Ayoob is not a lawyer, unless something has changed.

He’s not responsible for what he says about law.

He may be an expert on police procedures. Don’t know.

There are a number of pro-RTKBA people who are lawyers.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
My opinion is based upon the estimated 16 to 20 million owners of AR-15s in the United States, and the range of attitudes and gun knowledge across that spectrum.

certainly a wise move, but you can see how the NFA and it's (former) associated costs and legal requirements have shaded those attitudes, and knowledge.

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

quote:

quote:
Who Is Protected by the Injunction?

The fifteen plaintiff states

The state plaintiffs are Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

The injunction protects those state governments, their agencies, and their political subdivisions. It does not protect every person who resides in one of those states.

Who Is Not Protected?

The injunction does not protect:

Members of the general public who are not named plaintiffs, qualifying association members, or customers in covered transactions;

A resident of a plaintiff state merely because of residency;...

I thought all men were created equal.

It's 5PM. Am I allowed to order a silencer or convert my AR pistol without a form 4 now?

quote:

Originally posted by benny6:
It's 5PM. Am I allowed to order a silencer or convert my AR pistol without a form 4 now?

Brandon Herrera and a few others with deep fund raising pockets are ordering at 12:01am tomorrow morning. They are prepared to be in court for a long time if needed. If I had an itchy trigger finger I'd give them a one day head start.

I'm looking at this thing as one skirmish in a long war against gun grabbers that started in 1934. The gun grabbers are going to push back. They might wait 3 years for a new congress and president, but they are going to push back. This next year is a good time to buy.

GOA just posted:

quote:

Our requested deadline has come and gone, and neither ATF nor DOJ responded.

GOA, @SilencerShop, @TheAKGuy, & @WesVirdellTX will proceed with the transfer of suppressors tonight at 12:01 AM CDT — the first in 92 years without complying with the NFA registration requirements currently enjoined by the court.

Link

I would hold my horses a few more days before slapping a Magpul on your braced “pistol”, but now may be the time to get in line with a couple silencer orders, if you were contemplating one.

Also, notably, the government has 60 days to appeal the ruling, it has only been seven. What’s potentially happening tonight is the stay to prevent the decision from going into effect will be lifted. So, it’s very possible a small window for paperless devices may open up for people in certain states…

But, there’s still a good chance the stay will be extended.

quote:

Originally posted by Shackelford:
I would hold my horses a few more days before slapping a Magpul on your braced “pistol”...

Yeah, we are deep in uncharted waters, here. All I know is I don't want to be part of the vanguard of test cases to sort this out. Patience is the best policy here. If any of you can't help yourself and turn every AR lower you own into an SBR tonight, for fuck's sake, at least don't go posting about it all over the internet.

quote:

Originally posted by ibanda:
This next year is a good time to buy.

quote:

Originally posted by Shackelford:
but now may be the time to get in line with a couple silencer orders, if you were contemplating one.

Absolutely agree with this.

GOA website is just a little busy.

I wouldn't want to be a test case. Waiting at least a couple of weeks to see how things begin to play out is advisable.

I'm curious how gunsmiths are going to approach this. For instance, when you purchase barrel shortening work from Langdon Tactical for the Beretta 1301, this is part of what Langdon has on their website, in bold text:

"By purchasing Langdon Tactical’s barrel shortening service, the customer acknowledges and affirms that all required ATF approvals, including an approved ATF Form 1, have been completed prior to sending the barrel for service. The customer must also understand that Langdon Tactical does not verify ATF paperwork and assumes no responsibility for the customer’s compliance with federal, state, or local laws. The customer will accept full responsibility for the lawful possession, configuration, and use of the shortened barrel and any resulting firearm."

So, they have a "don't ask" policy, but by purchasing the service, you are tacitly acknowledging that you have an approved Form 1 for the firearm in question. Naturally, since this is all so new, it may be that Langdon soon amends that advisory, but who's to say?

The point is, don't assume anything when getting barrel shortening work done. Call your gunsmith in advance to clarify.

Also, with the recent proposal for change in certain NFA rules, such as receiver engraving, I wonder how the feds are going to proceed. Do they now put those proposed changes in limbo, or what?

Brandon Herrera has an FFL and SOT. So he can take possession of NFA items with no Form 4 or 4473. No news here. I do it all the time. The interesting thing will be whether Silencer Shop files a Form 3 to transfer the cans to him.

I could be way off, but my understanding is there is nothing illegal about owning a short barrel. It’s illegal however to put the short barrel on a rifle or shotgun without the appropriate paperwork. I’m assuming the service Langdon Tactical provides is you send them a barrel, they shorten it, and they send it back to you.

Similarity, I own a couple short barreled AR uppers that I bought from PSA. No paperwork needed until I want to install them on a rifle lower.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
I could be way off, but my understanding is there is nothing illegal about owning a short barrel. It’s illegal however to put the short barrel on a rifle or shotgun without the appropriate paperwork. I’m assuming the service Langdon Tactical provides is you send them a barrel, they shorten it, and they send it back to you.

Similarity, I own a couple short barreled AR uppers that I bought from PSA. No paperwork needed until I want to install them on a rifle lower.

Correct. Shortening a rifle barrel means nothing unless and until it's assembled into a rifle with a stock and a barrel less than 16" (or shotgun per the example with an 18" barrel), the gray area stuff about "firearm" and overall length nonsense notwithstanding. You could argue "constructive intent," but go look up how many people have gone to prison with such a charge. They don't exist, and that ain't even a blip on the ATF's radar currently.

Similarly, you can revert an SBR to pistol configuration to travel without notifying the ATF or "asking permission." They clarified this a long time ago, but people who don't pay close attention to NFA stuff because it's overwhelming and complicated still think you cannot travel with an SBR and will argue against this. The sticking point is what the current configuration is when you travel. I kept a couple braces for just this reason.

The heart of the advice, I absolutely agree with, though: proceed with caution. My own advice is still to act like nothing at all has changed, because you lose nothing by doing so. But definitely buy suppressors.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
Also, with the recent proposal for change in certain NFA rules, such as receiver engraving, I wonder how the feds are going to proceed. Do they now put those proposed changes in limbo, or what?

The comment period has closed. The ATF (under normal circumstances) would have an undisclosed amount of time to either enact or not enact these changes. Maybe they would enact them in 30 days, maybe 180, maybe never. No telling. I'd say they're probably in the same boat we're in, and that's a huge "now what?" mixed with not a little "wait and see."

And at this point, I'm wondering when I can remove my pistol brace and install a CTR stock.

quote:

Originally posted by benny6:
And at this point, I'm wondering when I can remove my pistol brace and install a CTR stock.

I thought we kind of addressed that, but honestly, you can just do go ahead and do that. We just don't know whether or not it's actually a felony at this point or not.

I'd like to obliterate the engraving on my SBR'ed SIG 556.

quote:

Originally posted by benny6:
And at this point, I'm wondering when I can remove my pistol brace and install a CTR stock.

2025 Florida Statute:

790.221 Possession of short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun; penalty.—
(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.

Do you lawfully own and possess your SBR under the provisions of federal law?

It's interesting there is no similar statute for suppressors. Silencers/mufflers are mentioned in 790.001 Definitions and defined by definition as firearms. There's no mention of them anywhere else in the statutes that I can find. Maybe there's case law. Otherwise, Florida law is silent on any requirements to follow federal law tyo lawfully own and possess supresserors.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by benny6:
And at this point, I'm wondering when I can remove my pistol brace and install a CTR stock.

2025 Florida Statute:

790.221 Possession of short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun; penalty.—
(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.

Seems that depends on the interpretation of item (3). If SBRs and SBSs are no longer under the NFA, then you only need a 4473 under federal law. Seems to me that if you filled out a 4473 when you got your gun, it’s lawful under federal law.

https://x.com/rep_clyde/status...721147831828991?s=46

Rep Andrew Clyde confirms the DOJ will not appeal.

^^^^ Thank God it’s not the Kackle’s DOJ.