Short barreled shotguns and rifles no longer under NFA of 1934?

[Irish Pat]

I just read an article that was mainly about suppressors being not under the NFA of 1934 any longer and it mentioned that short barreled rifles and shotguns would now also be no longer under be restricted that ruling.  Has any one checked it out? Irish Pat

[John Kloehr]

Do not buy or sell any of those items without talking to a qualified attorney.

 

First, the ruling does not apply to everyone everywhere, see the thread in Team SASS for more discussion. Also for a significant number of follow-up questions and concerns.

 

Then we also need to wait for the (now less than) 2 months to see if the DOJ appeals. Also two more cases are in the pipeline in other states which may have the opposite outcome. And the ATF needs to issue guidance for going forward. Finally,  Congress might still change the tax in the future from the current $0 to some other amount mooting this entire process.

 

With this background out of the way, and taking the core of the one ruling as the future outcome when the dust settles... Suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs will not longer be subject to the NFA. SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs are still subject to the same process under the GCA. As a result, only Suppressors will (at some point) go to just a basic 4473 NICS check, the rest still require a Form 1 or Form 4.

 

Closing note... This is a significant win for the 2A community. Keep in mind this is a tax powers ruling, not a 2A ruling. At least one of the other cases has a 2A challenge in it, the courts will generally not rule on a bigger question if plaintiffs can get relief on a lesser question. All of these cases are at the lowest courts in the federal system. Many hardware questions might become clearer after SCOTUS issues the Viramontes opinion in maybe July of next year.

[J.D. Daily]

P.S.  State law still applies.  If you live in a state that has a NFA law you must comply with it.  

[Still hand Bill]

2 hours ago, Irish Pat said:

I just read an article that was mainly about suppressors being not under the NFA of 1934 any longer and it mentioned that short barreled rifles and shotguns would now also be no longer under be restricted that ruling.  Has any one checked it out? Irish Pat

For some people they are no longer subject to the registration requirements of the nfa.  Thus can be purchased with a 4473 vs a form 4.  This only applies to the plaintiffs of the case, not everyone.  While a good step forward, I don’t believe the current situation is workable long term and will have to be changed.  

[Rye Miles #13621]

Ohio still has the NFA law to the best of my knowledge. We can still buy a suppressor but it goes through the background check but no tax stamp . SBR I’m not sure 🤔 

Edited August 19 by Rye Miles #13621

[John Kloehr]

3 hours ago, Rye Miles #13621 said:

Ohio still has the NFA law to the best of my knowledge. We can still buy a suppressor but it goes through the background check but no tax stamp . SBR I’m not sure 🤔 

IANAL, I am an engineer. Legal in Ohio with proper paperwork.

 

In Ohio from a quick look, SBRs and suppressors both still require NFA registration as a condition for possession. Senate bill 214:

 

https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/136/sb214/status

 

Now in a house committee would remove suppressors from state definitions of "dangerous ordnance," not a done deal. No idea how the 5th Circuit ruling might affect this, and if the state would consider passing a 4473 (only) background check complies with the legislative text. Be cautious until you have clear guidance from both the fed and the state. With NFA registration, I see no problems in Ohio.

 

 

[John Kloehr]

Not significant in the big picture but a sign of seeking clarity. The Mississippi Commissioner for Agriculture and Commerce requests an opinion from the Mississippi AG for how to proceed after the ruling. Probably being repeated in many places.

 

Legal documentation is critical guidance needed by FFLs and citizens in the state:

 

 

 

 

Edited August 21 by John Kloehr

[Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001]

well I ain't gonna be a crash test dummy 

 

   

[John Kloehr]

39 minutes ago, Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001 said:

well I ain't gonna be a crash test dummy 

Me neither! Which kind of sucks as I should stand up, but willing to hold back and let the process play through.

[Blackwater 53393]

If I was not responsible for my household, I might step up and make the move.  As it stands, I need to see where the chips fall here.

 

At least until BATFE and USDOJ provide more information and an idea of where the new boundaries will be, I’ll err on the side of caution.

[sassnetguy50]

On 8/19/2026 at 11:49 AM, Still hand Bill said:

For some people they are no longer subject to the registration requirements of the nfa.  Thus can be purchased with a 4473 vs a form 4.  This only applies to the plaintiffs of the case, not everyone.  While a good step forward, I don’t believe the current situation is workable long term and will have to be changed.  

The LGS said he can sell suppressors over the counter to current GOA members on a 4473.  

[Still hand Bill]

1 hour ago, sassnetguy50 said:

The LGS said he can sell suppressors over the counter to current GOA members on a 4473.  

I believe this is why it’s an unworkable solution long term.  People are buying suppressors today without a form 4, but only some people.   That’s what this injunction allows.   Now go even 5 years into the future, how will anyone know which cans require a tax stamp and which ones don’t.  I can only hope that so many are sold on a 4473 only that enforcement of the existing tax stamp process is impossible and the nfa requirements for sbr, sbs, and silencers are gone for everyone.  

[John Kloehr]

19 hours ago, Still hand Bill said:

I believe this is why it’s an unworkable solution long term.  People are buying suppressors today without a form 4, but only some people.   That’s what this injunction allows.   Now go even 5 years into the future, how will anyone know which cans require a tax stamp and which ones don’t.  I can only hope that so many are sold on a 4473 only that enforcement of the existing tax stamp process is impossible and the nfa requirements for sbr, sbs, and silencers are gone for everyone.  

And then you have the can and the FFL does not... How does the FFL get it off his NFA inventory? If you want to sell your can later, either to a GOA member or someone else, and if that sale is to an FFL, how does he handle the paperwork? If you want to go over state lines, how do you do this without a stamp? And how do you show a state(some require some degree of federal approval) any proof you are able to possess it?

 

I'm even holding off SBRing a certain braced pistol until I and my NFA FFL have the same guidance. Not just NFA but also what remains of the GCA. Positive decisions in Roberts (6th) and Brown (8th) will also be helpful. Or I can continue to fill out the forms if I don't want to wait. Hopefully at some point the registry gets shredded.

Edited August 23 by John Kloehr

[Blackwater 53393]

4 hours ago, John Kloehr said:

Hopefully at some point the registry gets shredded.

And when have you ever seen or heard of the government, ANY GOVERNMENT, shredding or destroying documents unless it was a matter of convenience for the government or its officials??  🙄

[John Kloehr]

41 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

And when have you ever seen or heard of the government, ANY GOVERNMENT, shredding or destroying documents unless it was a matter of convenience for the government or its officials??  🙄

Yes, there is that...

[Doc Shapiro]

I am hearing that the ATF is planning to appeal.  We will have to wait and see what happens as this develops.  

[Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001]

until it shakes out 

 

  ya be on unstable ground 

 

 

[Blackwater 53393]

I’m not particularly interested in being a test case if this thing goes sideways!

[Vail Vigilante]

In Tucson there are 3 LGS that I like. One engaged with the rules in the injunction the other two have not. I have no firearms business to transact currently but I am concerned about the 2 that are not following the judge’s ruling. What I don’t know is this. How much of their behavior is driven by lawyers telling them not to vs. how much of their behavior might be driven by a closeted dislike for 2A? Yes the 2A hating LGS is a real thing, not common but I have bumped into it more than once.  I have to say that my BSometer is in the yellow after seeing their statements.  I will have some non NFA business in the future about 4 months out because it takes time to save money. My concern is that I accidentally feed a closeted gun hater. Any of you all getting this feeling lately?

[John Kloehr]

7 hours ago, Vail Vigilante said:

... Any of you all getting this feeling lately?

Not me. There is still a very real chance you will only have 2 local gun shops in a couple months. Also those buying cans without Form 4 registration may have future problems and restrictions, at least until those details get resolved.

[Vail Vigilante]

Its truly odd to me that gun shops that sell merch depicting their logo across a background of eagles or snakes or Roman phrases, or We The People letterhead, choose to advocate for keeping RESTRICTIONS on firearms. Yet this is where we are at.  To expound on your comment, I am not sure that the LGSs that survive some as yet unclear blowback (if it happens) will survive the drop in sales from angered people. We might end up with all three of them shuttering in your scenario. Of course Ruger survived Bill Ruger. Cooper firearms survived Dan Cooper. So there are paths forward from these types of decisions. Like I say I do not have any suppressor business to transact at the moment.

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

Until and unless the SCOTUS says SBR, SBS, AOW and Silencer restrictions are unconstitutional nationwide and all laws to the contrary are null and void, there is going to remain some confusing ambiguity in all of this.  Which is why I won't be running out to shorten the barrel on my .45-70 Mare's Leg from 16.5 to 14 inches anytime soon.   Nor will I be getting a silencer for my Nagant revolver or my pirate pistol.   There's just too much greyness at the moment for me to do anything.

I am hopeful, but it's gonna take time to be fully resolved.

[Blackwater 53393]

I think that unless the gun dealers in question have outright said that they oppose the lifting of the restrictions, it’s pretty disingenuous to accuse them of being privately “anti-gun”!!

 

Quite frankly, they are smart to delay any sales without the paperwork, even if in the end that paperwork is declared unconstitutional and thus unnecessary!  As it stands, the ruling is still surrounded by ambiguities and a dearth of recognized guidelines!! Until October 5, the DOJ CAN STILL FILE AN APPEAL, which would likely result in a new injunction against the plaintiffs et al!!

 

The exercise of an abundance of caution is definitely in order here!

 

 

[John Kloehr]

4 minutes ago, H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619 said:

... won't be running out to shorten the barrel on my .45-70 Mare's Leg from 16.5 to 14 inches anytime soon.   Nor will I be getting a silencer for my Nagant revolver or my pirate pistol.   There's just too much greyness at the moment for me to do anything.

If I wanted a can or any of those items, I would just go ahead and file the needed form. I am already in the NFA database for multiple items. I did get a new can for a build when the stamp cost went to $0. I am close to deciding on if I might SBR a .22 rifle this winter, will be getting a can for that build either way. And the least legal risk for me. The recent ruling did not cover transfers into trusts, so I might need the right forms anyway. And by fall, we should all have guidance for all of this.

 

For the individual who is not yet in that database, that person may choose to wait. Making sure GOA membership is current might be a good step to take.

 

At the same time, there are 4473-only transfers taking place completely outside the named plaintiffs, members, and customers. While I will do the same as I have been doing so far, I do hope October 5th passes without an appeal. And hopefully all the 4473 transfers cause no problems for citizens or the businesses conducting them.

 

The California magazine Freedom Week (March 29 to April 5, 2019) is still under review in the 9th and Duncan is sitting at SCOTUS for the second time.

[John Kloehr]

35 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

I think that unless the gun dealers in question have outright said that they oppose the lifting of the restrictions, it’s pretty disingenuous to accuse them of being privately “anti-gun”!!

 

Agree. There was an interesting side issue in the Tennessee gun community when first permit less carry was introduced. The carry permit trainers did struggle between right to carry and loss of a paying gig. Those trainers were not anti-gun.

 

I can not find fault with an FFL not doing 4473-only transfers until their IOI provides guidance. In other news, the ATF has told those IOIs to not interpret the ruling themselves... While also not informing them of any specific interpretation.

[John Kloehr]

And on the side topic of Freedom Week magazines:

 

https://abc30.com/post/south-valley-man-facing-gun-magazine-charges-found-factually-innocent-/6241874/

 

This was in 2020. Mr Yang purchased the magazines during Freedom Week. He was able to prove this in court. This did not stop his arrest, booking, and felony charges, confiscation, and loss of his carry permit. Note the article states the CA Court of Appeals overthrew the law after some time... But that ruling was overturned on appeal, which is why Duncan is at SCOTUS again.

 

There are good reasons to be cautious and still standing up for our rights.

[John Kloehr]

And in a reply to an X tweet this morning (my bold):

 

https://x.com/Infringer13/status/2088238781698588999

 

"

 

Behind enemy lines but not in an NFA rules state we got this. I understand it from a small shop where his FFL is his ticket to feed his kids.

 

“Thank you everyone for your patience.

 

Local MD ATF from the Local MD Field Offices reached out and advised to NOT transfer Silencers/suppressors via 4473/NICS check until they give us further clarification.

 

This means we process under the $0 tax stamp as we have been doing since January 1st 2026 (for the time being) I am happy to process anything you need via $0 tax stamps and/or take payments / deposits and hold items until the new directions are received.

 

Please let me know what you would like to do”

 

"

[Vail Vigilante]

I was thinking about this on the way home and there is a third way.

Better than trying to sit on the fence.

Dealers that are apprehensive about continuing with NFA business in the current climate can just go Type 1 only.

Send back their inventory of NFA items to their wholesalers, deactivate their Type 2, and make a nice living selling Type 1 items which is probably the majority of it anyway. 

The 2A space is a big tent, and the Type 1 dealer plays a valuable role underneath it.

The little blurbs put out by some of these, (see above) is just not a good look.  

One of my favorite places is Type 1 only and I never have to question the owners 2A chops.

Falling off the top of the fence hurts, no matter what side you land on. Every cowboy knows that.

 

Edited August 28 by Vail Vigilante

[Blackwater 53393]

HYPOTHETICAL!!

 

I’m the owner of a full service firearms dealership! I have sold, serviced, and repaired guns for many years as my only source of income. I support a family!

 

I’ve sold and hope to continue to sell all types of firearms, ammunition, and accessories for the entire time that I’ve owned this business. 
 

The recent court ruling has spurred a rush on the desires to purchase of NFA firearms and accessories. The deadline for the temporary stay of the injunction has passed, but the window for appeal remains open. The ruling is neither nationwide nor all inclusive. The BATFE and USDOJ have not provided or produced any guidance as to how to navigate this new situation and the possibility exists that it all could be overturned or prohibitively delayed in the near future.

 

Am I supposed to jeopardize my livelihood on the possibility that the powers that be WON’T shut down my business and revoke my license in enforcing the old regulations ex post facto if the regulations are reinstated?

 

I know several gun shop owners that are staunch 2A supporters and active SASS members who are in this very position as I compose this post!  To my knowledge, none of THEM have an anti-gun bone in their body!!

 

Why on God’s green earth should they divest themselves of the opportunity to continue to provide ANY of the products or services they have offered for their entire business lives???

[Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001]

the question is , CAN you trust the government ?

 

short answer is NO !

 

  CB 

 

  

[John Kloehr]

10 minutes ago, Blackwater 53393 said:

...

 

I know several gun shop owners that are staunch 2A supporters and active SASS members who are in this very position as I compose this post!  To my knowledge, none of THEM have an anti-gun bone in their body!!

 

I'll be visiting one of those "gun shop owners that are staunch 2A supporters and active SASS members" next week to pick up a couple items. I sure don't want him to risk his business while waiting on guidance.

 

Rumors suggest the SilencerCo and Jenson plaintiffs are in discussions with the ATF to resolve the uncertainties for silencers and the other NFA (and still GCA) items. The ruling did rip a jagged hole in the heart of the regulatory framework.

 

Rumors also suggest there is a certain attorney in the DOJ (some say ATF) who is advocating appeal of the decision.

 

[Blackwater 53393]

17 minutes ago, John Kloehr said:

Rumors also suggest there is a certain attorney in the DOJ (some say ATF) who is advocating appeal of the decision.

 

Looking at that possibility, there’s even more reason for caution and concern!

 

From a totally practical perspective, an appeal COULD produce an even broader ruling, perhaps even a complete dissolution of the NFA!

 

What’s actually needed is a ruling that prevents usurpation of the Second Amendment.

[John Kloehr]

The Montana state Attorney General letter to law enforcement agencies:

 

https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/MTAG/2026/08/27/file_attachments/3761410/Silencer Shop Guidance Letter FINAL 8.27.26.pdf

 

A good introduction, a discussion of which citizens are covered (member in a named organization), notes about possible future appeals, and discussion of potential legislation when the state government meets again (not until January). Then the list of specific Montana state laws impacted by the decision.

 

All in all a good read as an example of what every state will now need to figure out. The key takeaway at this time is:

 

"

 

Montana law enforcement is respectfully advised that criminal

investigations regarding the possession, manufacture, and/or possession of

silencers, SBRs, SBSs, or sawed-off firearms under Mont. Code Ann. §§ 45-8-

336, 45-8-337, and/or 45-8-340 (2025) may be tenuous given the current legal

environment.

 

City and County Attorneys, or their respective deputies/associates,

presented with any criminal investigations for prosecution involving Mont.

Code Ann. §§ 45-8-336, 45-8-337, 45-8-340, and/or 87-6-401(1)(c) (2025) are

respectfully requested to submit such cases to the Montana Department of

Justice Prosecution Services Bureau for review and advisement before any

charges under the same statutes are formally filed in any Montana Court.

 

"

Edited August 28 by John Kloehr