quote:

statute says that possessing these items while not properly registered here is a crime (a felony no less) under state law.

The question is what does the STATE STATUTE actually say?

Does it specifically say “properly registered” meaning Federally??
If so I would argue.
Well, there now is no legal need to register with the ATF anymore so your UNRegistered suppressor, SBR, what ever is Properly Registered because no registration is required.

But I have not read the statute wording and definitions.

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

quote:

statute says that possessing these items while not properly registered here is a crime (a felony no less) under state law.

The question is what does the STATE STATUTE actually say?

Does it specifically say “properly registered” meaning Federally??
If so I would argue.
Well, there now is no legal need to register with the ATF anymore so your UNRegistered suppressor, SBR, what ever is Properly Registered because no registration is required.

But I have not read the statute wording and definitions.

Isn’t it that the laws still exist, just not enforced via discretion? I think state laws will have to change to be in alignment with the guidance.

Question: Is it now legal for me to purchase a 11.5" AR upper, have it shipped to my home, and me slap it onto a lower that was originally on a factory 16" rifle? I live in PA, by the way. Thanks.

quote:

Isn’t it that the laws still exist, just not enforced via discretion?

It depends. There’s two classes of people, those covered by the injunction and everyone else.

For those covered by the injunction, the specific federal laws do not apply and ATF is barred from enforce them against those people and entities. On a state level, it depends on the wording of the state laws if any such laws exist.

For everyone else, the ATF is using its enforcement discretion. On a state level, it again depends on the wording of any applicable state laws.

Navigating whether of not the injunction applies to you depends on who you buy from, what memberships you have, etc. Just as a quick example and I could be way off: I believe the Silencer Shop and its customers are covered which I think means if you buy a suppressor from them, you are covered by the injunction and gtg at the federal level.

Even more complicated is that the covered groups are different for suppressors, SBRs and SBSs versus “any other weapons”.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: trapper189,

quote:

It depends. There’s two classes of people, those covered by the injunction and everyone else.

That's why I choose to err on the side of caution. I recently purchased a SBR on Form 4. It cost about $100 and took more time, but I've got the paperwork in my file if ever questioned.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:

quote:

It depends. There’s two classes of people, those covered by the injunction and everyone else.

That's why I choose to err on the side of caution. I recently purchased a SBR on Form 4. It cost about $100 and took more time, but I've got the paperwork in my file if ever questioned.

I know that this whole thing is questionable and likely to change in the future. But, where I live (in the free state of Texas in a conservative area) the chances of me ever having an issue with the suppressor I bought on a 4473 is rare. If things change in the future, then most likely there weigh be an amnesty period where I can register it. No big risk to me but for others it may not be worth it.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei:

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:

quote:

statute says that possessing these items while not properly registered here is a crime (a felony no less) under state law.

The question is what does the STATE STATUTE actually say?

Does it specifically say “properly registered” meaning Federally??
If so I would argue.
Well, there now is no legal need to register with the ATF anymore so your UNRegistered suppressor, SBR, what ever is Properly Registered because no registration is required.

But I have not read the statute wording and definitions.

Isn’t it that the laws still exist, just not enforced via discretion? I think state laws will have to change to be in alignment with the guidance.

The law has been found unconstitutional and the DOJ was given ample time to appeal they did not. So the law is null for those covered by the injunction. However, it is very simple to become a covered party. You join the GOA for $25 (which everyone should have already done as saying a thank you) and you just need to buy from dealers/manufacturers that are GOA members. To the same note every FFL should be a member of the GOA at this point if you aren’t I will take my business elsewhere.

If you aren’t a covered party yes things could be different based upon what your state requires for the registration.
And, yes it needs to be addressed statutorily to cover everyone. But thankfully until then it takes less than 5 minutes and $25 to be covered.

But if a state simply says these items simply need the proper registration (based upon what that state defines their proper registration as) being unregistered could very well equate to proper registration.

Not going to lie, very happy to live in a free state and not have to worry about all that.

quote:

Originally posted by Opus Dei:

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.[/QUOTE]

Outstanding! The stub was bearable but if I can put an adjustable on it then that is something I will do.

How much confidence do we have that being a GOA member in a tied state satisfies the legalities of the current limbo?

quote:

Originally posted by Black92LX:
Not going to lie, very happy to live in a free state and not have to worry about all that.

I believe that everything you said is correct, especially the quoted part, which I’m jealous about.

However, a key word in your post was “argue”. That is what you get to do in court, and it is generally an annoying and expensive process, even if you end up winning. I’m not aware of a lot of situations where when you beat the government in court they say, “Whoops, sorry. Our bad. Here, let us pay your legal fees and compensate you for your time.”

I 100% agree that one should join a plaintiff organization, thus supporting the fight and gaining coverage by the injunction. However, I’d suggest becoming as sure as possible that taking that step provided protection from any state laws before purchasing. Even to the point of consulting with an attorney in one’s home state who is well versed in the nuances of their state’s firearms laws if one isn’t 100% confident after reading said statutes that they are in the clear.

This is HUGE progress, and is AWESOME. I would love to have tons of folks buy metric tons of these items to the point that they are in such common use that those of us stuck in true commie states can get our state’s statutes that flat out criminalize civilian possession of these items ruled unconstitutional, enjoined, and relegated to the scrap heap of history.

I’d hate to see any of our brothers getting jammed up on a technicality that they didn’t take the time to verify / completely understand in the process though.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
How much confidence do we have that being a GOA member in a tied state satisfies the legalities of the current limbo?

Depends on the wording of that state’s law. I’m fairly confident in Florida. However, I missed the marking requirement as far as SBRs and SBSs goes. It seems relief from the requirement only applies to members of the Jensen case, so you have to join the Texas State Rifle Association.

WHAT DOES THE TEXAS NFA DECISION MEAN FOR YOU?
“Certain marking requirements (26 U.S.C. § 5842(b); and 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i)) are enjoined with respect to the Jensen parties only. While the effect of this portion of the injunction will take some clarification from the government, it appears that the government will not be able to enforce the NFA’s marking requirements against Jensen parties’ members and customers who possess firearms covered by the injunction.“

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
How much confidence do we have that being a GOA member in a tied state satisfies the legalities of the current limbo?

Depends on the wording of that state’s law. I’m fairly confident in Florida. However, I missed the marking requirement as far as SBRs and SBSs goes. It seems relief from the requirement only applies to members of the Jensen case, so you have to join the Texas State Rifle Association.

WHAT DOES THE TEXAS NFA DECISION MEAN FOR YOU?
“Certain marking requirements (26 U.S.C. § 5842(b); and 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i)) are enjoined with respect to the Jensen parties only. While the effect of this portion of the injunction will take some clarification from the government, it appears that the government will not be able to enforce the NFA’s marking requirements against Jensen parties’ members and customers who possess firearms covered by the injunction.“

Lets wait and see how the Fl AG and DeSantis deal with this, wouldn't be surprised to see that law changed, quickly

Wait for what? What part of this requires a change for GOA members?:

790.221 (3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:
Wait for what? What part of this requires a change for GOA members?:

790.221 (3) Firearms in violation hereof which are lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law are excepted.

I'd like to read it the same way but is the law null and void? It's been declared unconstitutional but until Congress changes the law is it still a law?

Would love to throw a stock on some guns and finally do a barrel swap on my PS90, but unfortunately PA code says that the exception to "prohibited offensive weapons" is that you can provide a "preponderance of evidence" that "[you] complied with the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq.)".

To me that reads as a stamp is necessary (i.e. you need to be able to show it as "evidence").

I highly doubt our AG is going to weigh in on the positive.

May just Form 1 stuff since it's free unless I hear breaking news soon.

Brandon Herrera has two great videos on this whole issue. The first is an overview that also has a list of states that have laws against NFA items. The second is an interview he did with ATF Director Rob Cekada. There's a portion of this interview in the first video, but the second is the complete uncut interview.

By the ATF directors own statements, it appears that anyone living in an actually free state, you are free to possess an SBR, SBS, or suppressor sans stamp or any registration. WV is one of them. If the shitbag dems ever get power back, what would a reversal amount to? All current lawfully held items above are grandfathered?

The next step is to streamline the process to sell a full auto. It is a complete pain in the ass as it sits.

As has been stated many times, there are two things that affect the status of items like suppressors, etc.

One was the court ruling that applied to the plaintiffs of the case. That would apply to them and be binding unless overturned by a higher court. Note that the court case applied only to the NFA registration requirement, not to state or local laws. In addition, as I understand the case it was decided on the grounds that the registration was required on the basis of its being a taxing measure, and therefore was no longer valid once the tax was eliminated. I am only speculating now, but what would prevent a future Congress and President from passing a new registration requirement that had nothing to do with taxes? Nothing I can think of.

The second is the current ATF rule that eliminates the Federal registration requirement, but also has no effect on state or local laws. In addition it is a rule and only a rule. Rules can be changed at the whim of the rule-makers, and I would bet a whole handful of $1.00 coins that something happens to this most-currently announced rule no later than three years from now.

And there is no fundamental requirement that anything that was permitted under a previous law or rule (or lack thereof) must be “grandfathered” under a new rule or law. For example, not long ago Colorado passed a law making possession of forced reset triggers, bump stocks, etc., illegal. Based on my Internet research, there is no exemption for items owned before the law went into effect. Someone who possesses one of those devices today is a felon regardless of when he acquired it.

(FWIW, questions like this are precisely the reason why it is useful to have explanations that go beyond a single written document accessible via the Internet. And also why answers to such questions should be sought from sources other than a firearms discussion forum.)

For tied states, how about the 14th amendment where it says:

“…No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States…“?