Any movement on this?

quote:

Originally posted by m499:
I encourage everyone to leave a comment at the link above in support of the ATF rule change. It only takes a minute and you can do so anonymously. You can also do it here:

https://www.regulations.gov/do...t/ATF-2026-0005-0001

Wow. Looks like over a thousand people did make comments.

Para I am not an expert on this stuff just someone who has used the sytem a bunch, so thanks to advise, but why would you need new engraving on a Form 4 transfer. I completely get it on a Form 1. But it has to be made already for a form 4 or that has been my experience, is there some other transfer under a Form 4 that you need to mark it again? This regulation change to me is for the Form 1 firearms already marked by the mfg.

I misspoke

That's an amazing ruling, of course it will be appealed or they'll try to get a ruling in a Blue area to combat it then off to SCOTUS

If it all goes right, the NFA may just be eliminated... along with it's lists....

Hell yes…great job GOA!

Now…do we get a M249S and M240-SLR now to convert after the NFA is killed, or find a dealer with a M249 and M240B on hand willing to take a deposit?!

The best possible news today

I'd surely like to see them make a determination on this. With the recent attrition of NFA regulations, I am encouraged that this will become policy, but they seem to be in no hurry.

quote:

I am encouraged that this will become policy, but they seem to be in no hurry.

This needs to be pushed HARD by the DOJ.
Tell the ATF to get moving on the “clarification”.

I don’t see any evidence that DOJ will appeal the ruling. Does someone have any insider info?

I have the feeling it will be sometime early in 2027 when we get the word.

During the "brace amnesty", I converted two AR type pistols to SBR. No engraving was required, the factory serial number was sufficient and is on the documentation. I suspect that might have allowed them to begin to see the light that since it already had unique individual factory stamped serial numbers, nothing more was required to be able to identify them. I do hope they authorize this change so that firearms can remain unblemished.

It's difficult to believe my eyes. Am I reading this correctly?

https://x.com/gunrights/status/2108639659672690783

"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."

That answers the engraving question, build away.
I never thought I'd see this in my lifetime.

What hasn’t changed

State law still applies. If suppressors are restricted in your state, this guidance does not change that. Some states only allow suppressors that are registered under federal law, and dealers may not make a transfer that violates state or local law. For that reason, ATF will continue to accept and approve Form 4s from anyone who chooses to register.

ATF also cautions that this policy could change. Unregistered suppressors would not automatically be grandfathered if enforcement resumed. When in doubt, talk to your dealer before you buy.

https://americansuppressorasso...74adb1ee85225cd89f01

A clearer understanding of the situation as it stands for states such as mine can be had here:

https://sigforum.com/eve/forum...440074225#4440074225

What's at issue here is this:

Take the state of Georgia, for example. The applicable state law is O.C.G.A. § 16-11-122: No person shall possess any sawed-off shotgun (or sawed-off rifle, machine gun, dangerous weapon, or silencer) except as provided in § 16-11-124.

16-11-124 states, in part, that this prohibition does not apply to "Possession by a person authorized because the item has been registered in accordance with the National Firearms Act."

And therein lies the problem we have now, since registration is now not required under the NFA, except for "machine guns and destructive devices".

Firearms Policy Coalition and, I'm certain, other citizen's rights organizations, are petitioning the states where this gap exists because of the changes to the NFA yesterday, October 9.

Those states are Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin.

As I understand it, residents of these states will still need to register the manufacture or transfer of SBR, SBS, Silencers, et cetera, until their state government reconciles the matter. The Federal government is still accepting applications.

It seems, though, that the requirement to engrave the receiver of registered firearms is gone for good, since the state requirement says only that the firearm must appear in the NFA database.

I would disagree on the last sentence. The ATF has proposed a rulemaking to get rid of the engraving requirement, but it has not actually been adopted. The latest guidance based on the NFA lawsuit does not IMO ultimately solve the issue as its just a 'waiver' of enforcement, and actually doesn't absolutely destroy the marking requirement. And pursuant to current NFA regulations to get an approved F1 for example you are still to mark it so I don't think you can avoid it in a State that needs NFA registration.