BIG NEWS. NFA REGISTRATION UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

[Blackwater 53393]

CCRKBA WIN: FED. JUDGE SAYS SUPPRESSOR, SBR NFA REGISTRATION UNCONSTITUTIONAL 

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal judge in Texas has ruled the 1934 National Firearms Act’s (NFA) registration requirement, which has remained in force despite repeal of the enabling $200 tax, is unconstitutional, handing a victory to the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The ruling was issued Wednesday by District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Donald Trump appointee. He serves in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The case, known as Jensen v. ATF, was filed in October 2025 and is supported by the Second Amendment Foundation, which has a separate action known as Brown v. ATF and is also supporting another case known as Roberts v. ATF. In the Jensen case, CCRKBA is joined by the FPC Action Foundation, Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom and three individuals.

Congress acted last year to end the special federal tax on short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and suppressors as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill. The tax had enabled the NFA requirement under Congress’ authority to levy taxes. With the tax gone, there was no viable constitutional authority to continue registering SBRs and suppressors, compelling CCRKBA and its partners to take legal action.

“We are delighted with the ruling from Judge Hendrix,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “With the tax no longer in existence, there was no logical reason for the ATF’s registration requirement to continue. With this victory setting a precedent, we anticipate success in the other cases involving our sister organization, SAF.”

Judge Hendrix’s ruling applies to the plaintiffs in Jensen v. ATF, which includes CCRKBA and its members, and those in another case which was consolidated with Jensen.

“There is no longer any reason for this government gun registry scheme to continue,” Gottlieb observed, “and our victory will ideally lead to other successful court rulings across the country. American citizens should never have their names on a government registry in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”
 

My take?

This ought to get things rolling!!

[Sedalia Dave]

From the email I got from the NRA-ILA today

 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260805/federal-court-strikes-down-nfa-registration-requirements-for-suppressors-short-barreled-rifles-and-short-barreled-shotguns-in-nra-case

 

<quote>

 

The Court stayed the effect of the Final Judgment for seven days to allow the government an opportunity to seek relief from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals if it so desires.

 

The NRA’s case, Jensen v. ATF, was brought alongside the American Suppressor Association, Second Amendment Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition, with the plaintiffs Texas State Rifle Association, FPC Action Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Hot Shots Custom LLC, and individuals John Jensen, Jeremy Neusch, and David Smith. The Jensen case was ultimately consolidated with Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF.

 

<end quote>

[Blackwater 53393]

This is one of those times where the big organizations all kicked in and worked together!!

 

It’d be interesting to see if this will happen more often!!

 

JK!! Look it all over and tell us what you see!!

 

 

[Lawdog]

GOA beats NFA!

 

Love it!

[Blackwater 53393]

CCRKBA is a branch of SAF!!  Between the two of them, they’re the most litigious organization of them all!!

[Eyesa Horg]

Feels good to win another crumb back. 😊

[The Original Lumpy Gritz]

This should also apply to select-fire arms! 

[John Kloehr]

1 hour ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

JK!! Look it all over and tell us what you see!!

You rang? Or Just Kidding?  Either way, here I am.

 

Good ruling and a step forward. Not done yet. The order is stayed for a week as time for the fed to raise it at the 5th circuit Court of Appeals. Next step after that would be an en banc panel of the 5th, then the Supreme Court. This is a final (not preliminary) ruling from the district court.

 

What was decided? For several classes of defined arms (SBRs, SBSs, and silencers), when Congress changed the tax to $0 in the OBBB, it lost authority under the taxing power to require regulation (registration) of these items.

 

The ruling does not apply to AOWs! Not because there is anything special about AOWs, but because the plaintiffs failed to establish standing. A subtle legal blunder, no plaintiff stated intent to build or acquire an AOW (e.g. intend to put a vertical fore grip on a braced pistol) and did not do so due to the registration requirements. Absent this, AOWs would be covered and if needed, a plaintiff could bring such a suit in the future. A dot "I"s and cross "T"s matter... This got missed by the plaintiffs somewhere along the path of merging cases.

 

Next consider this as a 2A win. Well, do not do so. This is a taxing power win, these classes of arms simply got caught up in the whirlwind of paper. Since the law is unconstitutional under the taxing authority, the court did not (and did not need to) consider the constitutionality under the 2nd. So absolutely not a 2A ruling but the door on this is not slammed, it is denied without prejudice. Technically, the plaintiffs waived this argument if the law was unconstitutional under the taxing authority.

 

The court also considered constitutionality under the commerce clause and found the government arguments lacking. The court did leave open the possibility of future congressional action to regulate under that authority (like 922), the court specifically found the existing challenged regulations were not enacted under anything except taxing authority. The subtleties of this question consume more than a few pages of the opinion.

 

Now as to remedies and scope... Casa limits relief to the parties in a case. This is the other side of the issue where judges were "legislating from the bench" on immigration issues. Can not do a nationwide (or universal) injunction if the plaintiffs are not nationwide and can get relief on a smaller finding. Need to give other courts the space to "percolate" the same issues, etc.

 

Looking forward, the fed may appeal to the en banc court, and if denied, the Supreme Court. Should the 5th take it en banc, then any loss there will go to the Supreme Court. This is not over for another 6 to 18 months.

 

Should the legislature decide to regulate specifically under the Commerce Clause, then a challenge under the 2nd is not precluded by this ruling.

 

Who gets relief once the dust settles in a year or two (assuming no counter rulings)?

• The individual plaintiffs, except Jenson plaintiffs as to AOWs and no mention of those for the other plaintiffs
• Members of the Silencer Shop Founation (at least within the 5th District)
• Yes, limited to the 5th unless specified
• B&T USA, LLC, Palmetto State Armory, LLC, and SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC and its current and future customers
• Gun Owners of America, Inc., Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., and Gun Owners Foundation current and future members
• 15 states—Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming (the actual states under LE programs, not non-LE residents or citizens)

Yet have no doubt, the ruling clearly states (including the AOW deficiencies):

 

"

 

... to be clear: The challenged NFA provisions are unconstitutional. Congress’s choice to eliminate the transfer and making taxes matters .... Efforts to render the NFA constitutional must come from Congress, not this Court.

 

"

 

This is perhaps a mis-speak, Congress might be able to accomplish much of the same under amendments to the GCA under the commerce clause,  that is when a 2A challenge might "grow legs." Take-away is this was not a 2A opinion even though it is a 2A win, a big one. There just is no tax authority without an actual  tax and there is no general police power under tax authority without an actual tax.

 

Final matter. Attorney fees. Denied without prejudice. This might be procedural pending a motion after final resolution, or a signal the court recognizes this is likely not over and there will be more costs with appeals.

 

[John Kloehr]

Silencer shop, Brandon Herrera (The AK Guy running a a House seat), Wes Virdel (TX State House rep), and GOA announce first silencer transfers without Form 4. Brandon Herrera is also a SOT holder.

 

The DOJ and ATF do have until close of business to file an appeal with the Supreme Court.

 

 

 

[Blackwater 53393]

JK!  Is there an opposing ruling in another district that could help get this before SCOTUS for a nationwide ruling??

[Still hand Bill]

26 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

JK!  Is there an opposing ruling in another district that could help get this before SCOTUS for a nationwide ruling??

There would have to be an opposing ruling for the SC to take this case or that the SC thinks the ruling is wrong.  They don’t take cases they agree with.  Hence there has to be a circuit split or a ruling they don’t agree with.  If they agree with this ruling they will simply let it stand and not take the case.  
 

honestly if this ruling is not appealed it’s going to create a lot of confusion.  Some people won’t need a form 4 or form 1 yet other people will?   That’s completely unworkable from an enforcement standpoint.  As a PSA and SS customer, I potentially no longer need to file a form 1.  Even if this is allowed to go on for a day, how can they ever enforce the SBR statute again?   I could have created it during that 1 day.  Will be hard to prove otherwise.  Going to be messy for a while.  

[John Kloehr]

49 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

JK!  Is there an opposing ruling in another district that could help get this before SCOTUS for a nationwide ruling??

 

There are some active suits in district courts under the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. Will be a while before they bubble up to Supreme Court notice. These slice and dice some of the questions. One suit is only for SBRs and suppressors, Another is for SBSs and AOWs. Another suit covers all 4 items but raises a different legal argument. There may be suits in other districts, nothing I have tracked.

 

While no split on the NFA tax/registration question, the 9th ruled earlier this year saying suppressors are accessories and not even subject to 2A protection. The case this ruling came out of did include a challenge to the $200 tax, the 9th declared this question moot when the OBBB passed. Not a clear split at this time, it does show some divergence when looked at under hardware questions. I am not aware of any other case challenging the registration component that is anywhere close to a ruling.

 

Unless the ATF appeals to the Supreme Court or otherwise requests (and gets) extension of the stay, the order goes into effect. In the best outcome, the DOJ would concede the case and stop enforcing the registration requirements nationwide. The items would then default to a NICS check and form 4473. And law-abiding citizens could drill a hole in the end of their solvent traps, they just cannot sell those later without some other steps. This would be the same as any build from an 80% lower.

 

Congress could also act and remove the registration language.

 

An alternative court path is to refile asking for class status. This could result in a nationwide injunction.

 

And finally, there would be the grind of filing suits in all districts, either winning all or creating a split for resolution by the Supreme Court.

[Blackwater 53393]

We REALLY  need for this to be ruled on by the supremes in order to make it unquestionably a nationwide protection against further infringement!!

[Sedalia Dave]

Another messy situation arises as it currently stands.

 

What happens if a person buys said item(s) while living in the 5th Circuit and then subsequently moves into another Circuits jurisdiction.

[Blackwater 53393]

As it stands, unless I am mistaken, when someone is arrested or has their article seized because they are not covered by this ruling, they will have to sue in the judicial district court where the arrest/seizure takes place and then it’ll have to wander up the judicial ladder and receive an opposing ruling!  At that point, it’ll then go through the appeals process, and if upheld in subsequent appeals, it MAY the get a hearing from SCOTUS.

 

The other possibility is that DOJ or other plaintiffs from the cases in the fifth district decide to appeal.  If they do, it could get Supreme Court attention at some point.

 

Correct me if I’m mistaken.

[John Kloehr]

38 minutes ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Another messy situation arises as it currently stands.

 

What happens if a person buys said item(s) while living in the 5th Circuit and then subsequently moves into another Circuits jurisdiction.

At minimum, any state laws will still apply. As a conjecture, that person might have to transfer it from himself to himself either before or after the move but not bringing the item into a place where state law requires registration, even if that registration is federal... Yes, very messy.

 

13 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

As it stands, unless I am mistaken, when someone is arrested or has their article seized because they are not covered by this ruling, they will have to sue in the judicial district court where the arrest/seizure takes place and then it’ll have to wander up the judicial ladder and receive an opposing ruling!  At that point, it’ll then go through the appeals process, and if upheld in subsequent appeals, it MAY the get a hearing from SCOTUS.

 

Over the long haul, depending on how the near future plays out, yes. And I have no intention of being a test case.

 

4 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

We REALLY  need for this to be ruled on by the supremes in order to make it unquestionably a nationwide protection against further infringement!!

 

Should a future government pass legislation setting the tax anywhere between $1 and whatever $200 was worth in 1934, the Supremes might rule it constitutional as an exercise under tax power. And registration would return with it. Separate suits are now testing federal authority under the commerce clause, this case is still limited to the question as to a registration requirement if the tax is $0, and only if it is $0. The rest of the law remains on the books even if it does nothing until the tax returns.

 

If the ATF does not file an appeal or ask for an extension of the stay, then the planned transfers can go forward. Should the ATF then file an appeal within the remainder of the 60 days, then SCOTUS could pause the ruling. But by then, the "freedom week" or as I like to call it, the cat is out of the bag...

 

Before closing out this post, I want to address my understanding of the situation regarding "nationwide protection" as presented by @Blackwater 53393. 

 

Looking at a section of the (heavily edited) ruling (with my bold):

 

"

 

Before getting into the analysis, the Court adds a disclaimer: As it turns out, the dispute over whether the plaintiffs brought facial claims, as-applied claims, or both is somewhat tangential. As explained below, the plaintiffs prevail on their enumerated-powers claims no matter how they are understood, and the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims are abandoned.

 

"

 

Pause and consider. This is not a 2A ruling, this is a tax power question. Continuing in the ruling:

 

"

 

More importantly, because the Court tailors its remedy to the parties ... it effectively grants as-applied relief no matter how the plaintiffs’ claims are categorized. That approach—compelled by historical principles of equity and the Supreme Court’s decision in CASA—

...

“[S]uccessful facial challenges invalidate the regulation altogether, whereas successful as-applied challenges result in injunctions that protect only the plaintiff.” ... With that understanding, successful pre-CASA facial challenges—which naturally show that a law is unconstitutional in any circumstance—often resulted in universal injunctions that provided relief to parties not before the court. Post-CASA, a court may grant equitable relief only to the parties “‘actually or constructively before it,’”

...

Thus, under CASA, even a successful facial challenge will most often result in essentially as-applied relief

...

 

"

 

And this is exactly why the ruling applies only to the companies, organizations, and individuals before the court, and only in the jurisdiction of that court. And the author of this opinion is clearly expressing his frustration in limiting a ruling which would have been universal and applied to the rest of us.

 

Looking forward, the Supreme court did not prohibit universal injunctions, it clearly states there is an available class mechanism for universal relief. In the earlier immigration cases which resulted in the CASA decision (June 2025), those classes were not declared in advance. Same for this case which started within days of the CASA ruling. A class was not declared, tested, validated... So relief is limited to the actual parties. I expect future cases to include more groundwork to establish classes before proceeding to merits, though this will slow a case down by months. 

 

In other related news, from:

 

https://clyde.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=3717

 

"

 

Rep. Clyde and his colleagues urge the DOJ to not appeal the ruling, which marks the most significant victory for the Second Amendment since the NFA was enacted in 1934.

 

“We recognize the Department has a seven-day window under the court's order to seek relief at the appellate level, but we urge the Department not to appeal. An appeal would prolong regulatory uncertainty for law-abiding gun owners and businesses and would consume DOJ resources defending a position that this Congress and now a federal district court has said cannot stand. We ask that the Department decline to appeal, to seek rehearing, or to otherwise attempt to cabin or narrow this ruling.”

 

The lawmakers further urge the DOJ to immediately take steps to apply the court’s ruling nationwide and make its outcome permanent via rulemaking.

 

“Immediate application of the ruling nationwide is necessary to avoid the untenable alternative in the interim: a split enforcement regime in which the DOJ applies these requirements to one gun owner while declining to apply them to his neighbor, solely because one person happens to be a customer of Silencer Shop or a member of Gun Owners of America. Administering that kind of regime would require the DOJ and ATF to maintain two parallel tracks for identical conduct depending on the applicant's affiliations. That is not a workable or defensible way to administer a national regulatory program, even for the period before a rule can be finalized.”

 

"

[Blackwater 53393]

Another point of confusion is just who is actually covered by the protections of this ruling.

 

It’s been said that besides the Companies and the citizens within the fifth judicial district and all members of the NRA, nationwide, are covered and all GOA and SAF members as well. 
 

If this is correct, DOJ and ATF, possibly along with some states would need to establish separate standards for any type of enforcement as JK has said.  That would bring up “equal protection” issues!

 

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 12:54 AM by Blackwater 53393

[John Kloehr]

13 hours ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

Another point of confusion is just who is actually covered by the protections of this ruling.

 

And more confusion. It seems some are suggesting while the 5th ruling invalidates the registration component under tax legislation (NFA 1934) for silencers, SBSs, SBRs, and AOWs, it may only extend to suppressors under the GCA of 1968. Not sure if FUDD or real or the source of the concern. Also keep in mind some states still have laws requiring registration or possession restrictions.

 

In positive news, the test transfer did take place just after midnight. This was a carefully constructed transfer dotting all Is and crossing all Ts for all parties involved. Also while not definitive (not direct from DOJ and ATF), there is this from a credible source:

 

 

Since we are discussing government, not appealing is not as strong a statement as not intending to enforce against anyone (lawful) anywhere (under federal law).

Edited Thursday at 02:13 PM by John Kloehr

[Blackwater 53393]

I’m looking for position statements from DOJ and ATF on this!!

 

Another thing that has NOT been mentioned is that DOJ still has until early October to file opposition to the ruling. The injunction, while now in effect and considered permanent, CAN BE rescinded. If DOJ decides to take action in a higher court or ask for en banc review, the ruling could be overturned!

 

NOW! I raised the question of who is covered by this injunction, last night on one of the AI sources. In that query, I asked if my memberships in NRA and SAF, (I’m also a member of GOA) provided protection for me, despite the fact that I reside outside the jurisdiction of the fifth district circuit court. The reply was that yes, I was covered by the injunction.

 

I also inquired about SBRs and SBSs and AI said that they WERE included in the ruling!!

 

**In tiny print beneath those replies was a criptic note stating that AI can be wrong!**

 

I suspect that we will have to see the “dust settle” around this issue before we actually know anything!!

[John Kloehr]

27 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

I’m looking for position statements from DOJ and ATF on this!!

 

Another thing that has NOT been mentioned is that DOJ still has until early October to file opposition to the ruling. The injunction, while now in effect and considered permanent, CAN BE rescinded. If DOJ decides to take action in a higher court or ask for en banc review, the ruling could be overturned!

 

NOW! I raised the question of who is covered by this injunction, last night on one of the AI sources. In that query, I asked if my memberships in NRA and SAF, (I’m also a member of GOA) provided protection for me, despite the fact that I reside outside the jurisdiction of the fifth district circuit court. The reply was that yes, I was covered by the injunction.

 

I also inquired about SBRs and SBSs and AI said that they WERE included in the ruling!!

 

**In tiny print beneath those replies was a criptic note stating that AI can be wrong!**

 

I suspect that we will have to see the “dust settle” around this issue before we actually know anything!!

 

True, I have not looked up the specific date and what courts it may file in. The DOJ let the 1 week deadline to appeal and extend the stay. I consider this short deadline from the court as a signal to the government to decide quickly, don't delay any challenge. DOJ still has plenty of time to file a challenge.

 

I'm interested in hearing when any of the 15 covered states start transferring silencers (and maybe other arms?) without a Form 1 or 4. And for Silencer Shop to start shipping without them.

 

And a clear DOJ statement would definitely be helpful. For silencers and also for SBSs, SBRs, and AOWs. And being clear for who and where.

 

I'm sure my local can pusher's phone is ringing off the hook today. There might be a can shortage for a while until enough legally unregistered cans flood the market.

 

[Milledge Luke]

I’m also hearing that DoJ will not appeal at all.   Brady, Gifford, NYT, etc., and all losing their lunch over it (“de lamentations of da wimmin”). Get ready for a rush on Silencer Shop’s inventory over the weekend!

 

I suspect GOA, FPC, and other plaintiff orgs will start offering free 1 year memberships so that as many people as possible can be covered by the injunction (and such people might then want to become paying members).

 

i suspect the next move will be to file class action lawsuits in Judge Hendrix's court, making the same argument and seeking to certify classes of (1) all individuals nationwide who are eligible to purchase or make cans, SBS, SBR, and AOW’s and wish to do so without complying with the NFA, (2) FFL’s who are licensed to sell such weapons but do not want to have to Form 4 each sale, and (3) SOT’s who can make such weapons but do not want to have to register or do other paperwork associated with each unit produced / transferred.

 

#1 would likely have summary judgment granted quickly, and a nationwide class (which SCOTUS has indicated is doable) would then give the decision nationwide effect.  ##’s 2 and 3 might take a bit longer but would really open the floodgates.

 

But I think that what you will also see is an explosion of parts kits, especially for cheap aluminum cans that are only good for a few hundred shots and are treated as a consumable.  These are popular in many countries that require suppressors, and would be all most people who don’t put hundreds of rounds down range will ever need.

 

Buckle up, things are going to be very interesting over the next few weeks.

[Rip Snorter]

Didn't see anywhere - was NRA one of the plaintiffs?

[John Kloehr]

37 minutes ago, Rip Snorter said:

Didn't see anywhere - was NRA one of the plaintiffs?

 

From (with my bold):

 

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260812/what-does-the-texas-nfa-decision-mean-for-you

 

"

 

The case is two separate cases that were consolidated (Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and the NRA-supported case Jensen v. ATF). The distinction is somewhat important because the injunction applies in slightly different ways to the different groups of parties.

 

The SSF parties are B&T USA, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Palmetto State Armory, Silencerco Weapons Research, Silencer Shop Foundation, the States of Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming, and several individuals.

 

The Jensen parties are the Texas State Rifle Association (NRA’s Texas affiliate), Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Hot Shots Custom, and several individuals.

 

"

 

Since the NRA organizational plaintiff is the Texas affiliate, the injunction applies to members of that affiliate.

[John Kloehr]

FPC letter to DOJ:

 

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/15027/attachments/original/1786656734/2026.08.13_Ltr._to_Govt.pdf?1786656734

 

"

 

... Plaintiffs request that the Government provide clarification on the following questions. This is an

initial list and we anticipate that there may be need for ongoing dialog on these issues.

 

1. Will the Government be providing guidance to regulated entities and individuals

on how it plans to ensure compliance with the injunction?

 

2. If the Government will be providing guidance, what form will it take, and when

will it be provided?

 

3. Does the Government intend to continue enforcing the enjoined provisions of the

NFA against entities or individuals who are not covered by the injunction?

 

4. If so, what will the Government do to ensure that it does not seek to enforce the

enjoined provisions of the NFA against entities and individuals across the country who are covered

by the injunction?

 

5. If the injunction is later stayed, modified, dissolved, or otherwise made ineffective,

how will the Government treat NFA items made or transferred while the injunction was in effect?

 

I look forward to receiving the Government’s response. Due to the time-sensitive nature of

this issue, we respectfully request a response by August 21.

 

"

[Sedalia Dave]

Got this in an email today.

 

Lays out a lot of restrictions and possible pitfalls.

 

What the NFA Injunction Really Means for Suppressor Buyers — and What It Doesn’t

 

 

[John Kloehr]

PSA/GOA Fundraiser. I ordered 2:

 

https://palmettostatearmory.com/funraiser-psa-ar-15-goa-15-stripped-lower-receiver.html

 

 

[John Kloehr]

20 hours ago, Sedalia Dave said:

Got this in an email today.

 

Lays out a lot of restrictions and possible pitfalls.

 

What the NFA Injunction Really Means for Suppressor Buyers — and What It Doesn’t

 

Excellent link. It does not conflict with anything I have read so far, filled in some gaps and blanks, and added a couple items I had not considered (like gun trusts vs individuals).

 

Also contained pointers to a couple NFA cases I will look at deeper later. Both are at a summary judgement stage, waiting on opinion. Both judges have docket entries for the Silencer Shop ruling:

 

District Court, E. D. Kentucky (6th)        Roberts v ATF   NFA Registration

 

District Court, E. D. Missouri  (8th)         Brown v ATF     NFA Registration

The NRA as a national membership organization is a named plaintiff in this suit)

[John Kloehr]

1 hour ago, John Kloehr said:

 

... Both judges have docket entries for the Silencer Shop ruling:

 

District Court, E. D. Kentucky (6th)        Roberts v ATF   NFA Registration

 

District Court, E. D. Missouri  (8th)         Brown v ATF     NFA Registration

The NRA as a national membership organization is a named plaintiff in this suit)

On closer inspection, only Brown has notice of the Silencer Shop decision (so far). Both are current to formal notification of Wolford, Hemani, and Landor.

 

Landor clarified non-taxpayers can not be subject to filing requirements in support of a tax someone else pays. This challenges the ATF's position on individual registration on $0 tax items supporting administration of the SOT.

 

The plaintiffs and the ATF largely make the same arguments as already in the record for Silencer Shop. 

 

Like these two cases, Silencer Shop was a District Court case, not Circuit Court, so is not precedential or binding on other district courts. They are considered advisory.

[John Kloehr]

Some deeper questions on trusts are popping up. The NFA trusts are not to "hold" ordinary firearms, only NFA items. My trust does have NFA in the name.

 

So the questions are if these NFA no longer taxed can even be in a trust, do  they need to be transferred out? If so, how? And when (or by when)?

 

Also learned there is something (someone) called an IOI (Industry Operations Investigator). This is the person who basically audits and guides all records held by any FFL. FFLs really can not be sure of any action until they have IOI guidance.

[Still hand Bill]

2 hours ago, John Kloehr said:

Some deeper questions on trusts are popping up. The NFA trusts are not to "hold" ordinary firearms, only NFA items. My trust does have NFA in the name.

 

So the questions are if these NFA no longer taxed can even be in a trust, do  they need to be transferred out? If so, how? And when (or by when)?

 

Also learned there is something (someone) called an IOI (Industry Operations Investigator). This is the person who basically audits and guides all records held by any FFL. FFLs really can not be sure of any action until they have IOI guidance.

Provided you are in a state that doesn’t prohibit ownership or requires a tax stamp, and are one of the named groups in the injunction, I think you could simply transfer the previous nfa item to an individual.  Since a form 4 is no longer needed, and a person to person doesn’t need a 4473, it’s just a ftf transfer.   Still going to be a nightmare for enforcement.  I suspect that simple ftf transfers are now allowed by this injunction as well provided both parties are covered.  Imho this really is the end of the nfa for silencers and sbrs.  There will simply be too many transactions and created items for the atf to fight it in court.  even if they want to, they don’t have enough people.  Since there is no record of all the new creations and ftf transfers, no way to even know it’s happened and now that the ownership is so common, no one is even going to ask any questions.  

[Blackwater 53393]

As I said in another thread here, IF YOU CHOOSE TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS NOW, DO IT WITH CAUTION!!