Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration on "untaxed" firearms (Page 152 of 195)
|
Originally Posted By Glocked: lol, yup. It’s one of the few things I use it(Grok) for, if the summary seems interesting I’ll watch the video. It’s also handy when trying to determine if images have been digitally altered or manipulated. It can pick up things that may not be clearly visible to your eyes, and can often track down originals. I'm at the point where I will not watch a 20+ minute video on a topic without summarizing it first to see if I should even bother. And I just stumbled across this button, which appears when you click the "...more" link beneath a video in the YouTube app, so it's now even easier. 
|
|
Originally Posted By st33ve0: Here's hoping we get a favorable outcome in Brown v ATF and/or Roberts v ATF in regards to the 2A aspect and not just the tax. Ideally this keeps moving in the right direction before they get a chance to mess it up. That said, IANAL, but I would imagine any purchased during the period between the injunction stay expiration and the imposition of a new tax would be essentially like Freedom Week in CA, but for cans and SBR/SBS. Originally Posted By st33ve0: Originally Posted By boolzi: Originally Posted By bigbore: Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot: Or if B&T or another covered manufacturer stops filing Form 2s. Clearly everyone down the line is a customer of there's so they can be freely sold as any transaction would be to a covered party, but what if someone wanted to register it to sell to an NFA state. What if someone took possession of a recent 4473 can, moved to an NFA state and attempted to register it on a Form 1? Would it be rejected because it's already registered? Could I as an 07/02 register that same can on a form 2? Another scenario. What if you bought a can on 4473, and the next congress adds back the $200. Here's hoping we get a favorable outcome in Brown v ATF and/or Roberts v ATF in regards to the 2A aspect and not just the tax. Ideally this keeps moving in the right direction before they get a chance to mess it up. That said, IANAL, but I would imagine any purchased during the period between the injunction stay expiration and the imposition of a new tax would be essentially like Freedom Week in CA, but for cans and SBR/SBS. Never underestimate a biden-esque admin and congress. If these are not removed from the nfa which will take 60 votes in congress, and only simple majority to reinstate the tax then this is not a permanently legal win. You can not rely on a common use type ruling saving it. Especially if we never get a guidance from the atf, which is quite possible and probably wont until after the midterm smoke clears. |
|
Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: If covered on Jensen, it's kind of a quandary. 26 us code 5842(a) was not specifically addressed. What Jensen addressed is.... 26 us code 5842(b) and 26 us code 5861 (i) So it seems to me what that means is, if you are making it you should mark it, but if you receive or possess one without markings, it's not unlawful and you don't have to mark it..... I don't understand how 26 us code 5842(a) wasn't ever talked about when parts kits were cheap and plentiful. Everyone worried about US made parts to comply with 922r but everyone always said "home built firearms dont have to have a serial but if you're ever going to give one away or sell it, you should mark it but it isn't required." Id think that if I could build an AK at home on a receiver that I made and it didn't need a number, a 3d printed can shouldn't either. |
"Freedom is a messy business." - LaRue_Tactical
I am a sack of blood, held together by un-tanned leather. . .
I am a sack of blood, held together by un-tanned leather. . .
|
Originally Posted By Kevinski: If ATF approved a Form 4 for someone protected under the injunction, ATF would be violating the injunction. Not at all. They cannot require a Form 4. But nothing prevents them from issuing one to a covered party who voluntarily requests one. |
Avatar stolen from Ranger Up.
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
1205
EE: 0% (0)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By DFARM: I don't understand how 26 us code 5842(a) wasn't ever talked about when parts kits were cheap and plentiful. Everyone worried about US made parts to comply with 922r but everyone always said "home built firearms dont have to have a serial but if you're ever going to give one away or sell it, you should mark it but it isn't required." Id think that if I could build an AK at home on a receiver that I made and it didn't need a number, a 3d printed can shouldn't either. Originally Posted By DFARM: Originally Posted By nu3gawhat: If covered on Jensen, it's kind of a quandary. 26 us code 5842(a) was not specifically addressed. What Jensen addressed is.... 26 us code 5842(b) and 26 us code 5861 (i) So it seems to me what that means is, if you are making it you should mark it, but if you receive or possess one without markings, it's not unlawful and you don't have to mark it..... I don't understand how 26 us code 5842(a) wasn't ever talked about when parts kits were cheap and plentiful. Everyone worried about US made parts to comply with 922r but everyone always said "home built firearms dont have to have a serial but if you're ever going to give one away or sell it, you should mark it but it isn't required." Id think that if I could build an AK at home on a receiver that I made and it didn't need a number, a 3d printed can shouldn't either. Because that's in the NFA, not the GCA (for those not engaged "in the business"). NFA didn't touch serialization for non-taxed (at that time) guns. My hot-take for entertainment is transferring an unserialized title I item without serialization would appear kosher while transferring a $0 tax "NFA" item would be one of the few ways (perhaps only reliable way?) to actually establish beyond a reasonable doubt manufacturing has finished and it should have been serialized. However, I am stating this as entertainment, not advice. |
I think this will settle in our favor this time because of who is top dog now, being Todd Blanche’s family is in the business. Praying so anyway. My only interest currently is the SBR ruling because of 2 horrible braces I have. The 2 original Sig Braces, one of which is the only thing that will work on a pretty junky Professional Ordinance pistol where everything is proprietary just about will stay. I only use it to demonstrate the flame thrower capabilities to newbies lol. But the other one along with the tail hook have got to go. They may or may not have already! I’m watching the suppressor stuff for our sort of adopted son who really want a few. ETA he has one of the $2500 5.7 pistols he’s dying to suppress. |
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: But we want them to have markings and serial numbers so they stay classified as firearms protected under the 2nd, not just common accessories. In the long run it won’t matter. I think SCOTUS said something to the effect of “including all of the accoutrements…” Either way, i think with 6.8 million in circulation, the NFA failed at it’s original intent to restrict these things. ATF loses money even with a $200 tax, and try to regulate something that is now so common, is really helpful as hearing protection and noise pollution, which generally does NOT silence to what most people used to believe, and doesn’t actually fire a projectile on its own, it’s become almost pointless. I think with regards to suppressors, it will just die a slow death. Very possible that a few years from now, they really will be sold in blister packs next to the ear muffs. They literally have more benefits than any perceived harm. Just that public opinion is such because of perception only. Not reality. |
"Who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt" - Cesare Beccaria's Essay on Crimes and Punishments
Discusses the Ammoland article with the 4 FFLs. ATF Approves 4473 Suppressor Sales? (But Don't Get Too Excited) |
|
Originally Posted By boolzi: Never underestimate a biden-esque admin and congress. If these are not removed from the nfa which will take 60 votes in congress, and only simple majority to reinstate the tax then this is not a permanently legal win. You can not rely on a common use type ruling saving it. Especially if we never get a guidance from the atf, which is quite possible and probably wont until after the midterm smoke clears. Originally Posted By boolzi: Originally Posted By st33ve0: Originally Posted By boolzi: Originally Posted By bigbore: Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot: Or if B&T or another covered manufacturer stops filing Form 2s. Clearly everyone down the line is a customer of there's so they can be freely sold as any transaction would be to a covered party, but what if someone wanted to register it to sell to an NFA state. What if someone took possession of a recent 4473 can, moved to an NFA state and attempted to register it on a Form 1? Would it be rejected because it's already registered? Could I as an 07/02 register that same can on a form 2? Another scenario. What if you bought a can on 4473, and the next congress adds back the $200. Here's hoping we get a favorable outcome in Brown v ATF and/or Roberts v ATF in regards to the 2A aspect and not just the tax. Ideally this keeps moving in the right direction before they get a chance to mess it up. That said, IANAL, but I would imagine any purchased during the period between the injunction stay expiration and the imposition of a new tax would be essentially like Freedom Week in CA, but for cans and SBR/SBS. Never underestimate a biden-esque admin and congress. If these are not removed from the nfa which will take 60 votes in congress, and only simple majority to reinstate the tax then this is not a permanently legal win. You can not rely on a common use type ruling saving it. Especially if we never get a guidance from the atf, which is quite possible and probably wont until after the midterm smoke clears. I still feel we're in a better position than we've ever been. Especially if we get favorable decisions in Brown and Roberts...any other circuit tries the same thing (very likely now that this cat is out of the bag) and we get conflicting circuit decisions and hopefully a SCOTUS decision in our favor...just have to hope it can happen before Dems pack the court. Guess I'll vote harder until this is resolved and be better about calling and emailing my reps regularly...not much else I can do. |
|
Originally Posted By MiamiblueRoan: Word around the campfire is atf is telling dealers a silencer transferred by 4473 with be listed as a lost “gun” and there will be hell to pay. At least in my neck of the woods Hill Country area. Well, William Kirk on his Washington Law YT channel says he knows of four FFL's (among the many already transferring suppressors on 4473's) that have already been audited by their IOI and cleared with no violations. See his current video dated 8/21/2024 |
|
Originally Posted By DD1801: Sorry, I'm not going out of my way to do extra work, just to find out what the video is about. If the person sharing the video didn't care enough to even tell us what the video was about, then it must not be all that big of a deal. And I'm not the only person that feels this way. Thank you!! |
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
|
Originally Posted By Kobolowsky_Tires: Well, William Kirk on his Washington Law YT channel says he knows of four FFL's (among the many already transferring suppressors on 4473's) that have already been audited by their IOI and cleared with no violations. See his current video dated 8/21/2024 I hope the 2024 is a typo |
| Some of you, like me, who have a few guns with braces…I would not get rid of those braces just yet. Think about this- if you need to transport your new, home-made SBR across state lines, it would be easier to remove the SBR stock and slide the brace for the travel, then put the stock back on when you get to your destination. Remember, neither of the rulings exempt you from notifying the ATF about crossing state lines with your SBR. |
USAF-retired. GOA, FPC, CCRKBA member
|
Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot: I would say an SBR/SBSs is clearly a firearm under the state offensive weapon law and therefore paragraph 3 applies. (3) This section shall not apply to any person who makes, repairs, sells or otherwise deals in, uses or possesses any firearm for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth. Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot: Originally Posted By AK74-U: I live in a "non-free" state, PA, that relies on the NFA approval to allow SBR/SBS/ETC to be legal in the state. Since the coveted "guidance" never happened, and it seems like this limbo is the "new normal"..... Should I just go back to the zero dollar stamps/paperwork/waiting/etc? I thought by now there would have been some kind of movement one way or the other but it is getting increasingly unlikely anything will happen until the next lawsuit of some kind from GOA/etc. I primarily wanted to do SBR/SBS's with no paperwork, but that's grey area as well on a state level. Zero dollar stamps aren't terrible, but 4473's and no paperwork period are obviously better. What say you? I would say an SBR/SBSs is clearly a firearm under the state offensive weapon law and therefore paragraph 3 applies. (3) This section shall not apply to any person who makes, repairs, sells or otherwise deals in, uses or possesses any firearm for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth. @AK74-U We have a good discussion going on it the HTF and I encourage all PA members to read it and contact their representatives to get the statute amended or, better yet, abolished. https://www.ar15.com/forums/Hometown/18-Pa-Cons-Stat-908/14-681619/?page=1&anc=7523417#i7523417 |
|
Originally Posted By Advance: Discusses the Ammoland article with the 4 FFLs.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2msVwxCqQl8Summary: This video, presented by William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, discusses the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the transfer of NFA items, specifically suppressors, via ATF Form 4473 following recent litigation and injunctions (0:00-0:45). Key Takeaways: - Current Status: There is currently no official ATF or DOJ guidance on the new process for these transfers. The speaker emphasizes that while some transfers via 4473 have occurred, it remains a period of significant legal ambiguity (0:52-1:12). - Reported Compliance: The video references an article by John Crump on Ammoland, which reports that at least four FFLs (Federal Firearms Licensees) have successfully completed ATF audits after transferring suppressors using a 4473 instead of the traditional Form 4. These FFLs were found to have no violations (3:42-4:24). - Important Context: Kirk stresses that these specific FFLs and their customers were part of the named plaintiff class protected by a court injunction. He warns that this does not automatically mean all FFLs nationwide are authorized to follow this process (2:34-2:59). - Advice for FFLs: The speaker strongly advises against rushing to adopt this method. He recommends consulting with local counsel, as individual states may have additional regulations that could conflict with these transfers (4:54-5:28). The video concludes by noting that while the situation is unprecedented, Kirk hopes for clear, formal communication from the ATF director in the near future (5:44-6:39). |
|
Originally Posted By CarlosC: Some of you, like me, who have a few guns with braces…I would not get rid of those braces just yet. Think about this- if you need to transport your new, home-made SBR across state lines, it would be easier to remove the SBR stock and slide the brace for the travel, then put the stock back on when you get to your destination. Remember, neither of the rulings exempt you from notifying the ATF about crossing state lines with your SBR. That is some olympic caliber mental gymnastics right there 
|
|
Originally Posted By ParityError: Not at all. They cannot require a Form 4. But nothing prevents them from issuing one to a covered party who voluntarily requests one. Originally Posted By ParityError: Originally Posted By Kevinski: If ATF approved a Form 4 for someone protected under the injunction, ATF would be violating the injunction. Not at all. They cannot require a Form 4. But nothing prevents them from issuing one to a covered party who voluntarily requests one. More specifically, they can require one... they're just barred from any enforcement regarding violations with regards to protected parties. |
|
Originally Posted By boolzi: Never underestimate a biden-esque admin and congress. If these are not removed from the nfa which will take 60 votes in congress, and only simple majority to reinstate the tax then this is not a permanently legal win. You can not rely on a common use type ruling saving it. Especially if we never get a guidance from the atf, which is quite possible and probably wont until after the midterm smoke clears. I have some hope after listening to that Four Boxes Diner guy that some ruling in the interim since NFA was passed that prohibited targeted taxes against protected constitutional activities (murdock vs Pennsylvania maybe?) would make it a lot harder to reinstate the tax. I wonder why that wouldn't have been tried in the last 80 years if true, but who knows. As a fallback I guess we'll have to figure out a way to make it so unpopular and politically threatening to the shitbirds that might vote for it that it's impossible to get even with a simple majority. |
|
Originally Posted By tnriverluver: I hope the 2024 is a typo Originally Posted By tnriverluver: Originally Posted By Kobolowsky_Tires: Well, William Kirk on his Washington Law YT channel says he knows of four FFL's (among the many already transferring suppressors on 4473's) that have already been audited by their IOI and cleared with no violations. See his current video dated 8/21/2024 I hope the 2024 is a typo Cautionary note, this is info that has been circulating for a few days via Ammoland I believe so WGL is relatively far down the grapevine hearing it. He seems like one of the best guntube law channels and I watch his stuff often but nobody is immune from their sources turning out to be bad when looked at from this distance. |
|
Originally Posted By scuba_steve: While I agree that posting a long video without a summary sucks a bit, rather than complain about it, you can simply drop that video link into Gemini and tell it to summarize the video. Even better, then post the summary here. Sure, it would have been great if the person who posted the video did this, but really, what does bitching about it do for you? Unless you just like to complain. Be the change you want to see. 
|
Tom Sawyer.
"If The Rules brought us to this, what use are they?"
"If The Rules brought us to this, what use are they?"
Grey area state here. Two F4s approved today after 13 days. (Submitted right after the poop hit the fan. )
|
“I don’t want a valuable life lesson, I just want an ice cream.”
Space Corps Directive 196156: 'Any officer caught sniffing the saddle of the exercise bicycle in the women's gym will be discharged without trial.'
Space Corps Directive 196156: 'Any officer caught sniffing the saddle of the exercise bicycle in the women's gym will be discharged without trial.'
|
Originally Posted By FishKepr: Grey area state here. Two F4s approved today after 13 days. (Submitted right after the poop hit the fan. )All that time for a background check that could be done on the spot with a 4473. Or better yet save all that time and effort and just allow a 80% suppressor kit or 3D printed can like the lower I am printing right now. Gov is way to involved in the life of hard working law abiding citizens. |
|
Originally Posted By CarlosC: Some of you, like me, who have a few guns with braces…I would not get rid of those braces just yet. Think about this- if you need to transport your new, home-made SBR across state lines, it would be easier to remove the SBR stock and slide the brace for the travel, then put the stock back on when you get to your destination. Remember, neither of the rulings exempt you from notifying the ATF about crossing state lines with your SBR. Personally, I'd prefer not to the be the test case for doing this. Again, personally, I plan on keeping one AR pistol in the pistol format just for taking with me from IN to MI. The north boundary of my subdivision is literally the MI state line and almost all of my family resides in Michigan. We also vacation in the UP and upper Lower Peninsula every year so this is a regular thing for me. Feel free to do what you believe works for you, though. |
The right to own weapons is the right to be free.
|
Originally Posted By Dangus: Summary: This video, presented by William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, discusses the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the transfer of NFA items, specifically suppressors, via ATF Form 4473 following recent litigation and injunctions (0:00-0:45). Key Takeaways: - Current Status: There is currently no official ATF or DOJ guidance on the new process for these transfers. The speaker emphasizes that while some transfers via 4473 have occurred, it remains a period of significant legal ambiguity (0:52-1:12). - Reported Compliance: The video references an article by John Crump on Ammoland, which reports that at least four FFLs (Federal Firearms Licensees) have successfully completed ATF audits after transferring suppressors using a 4473 instead of the traditional Form 4. These FFLs were found to have no violations (3:42-4:24). - Important Context: Kirk stresses that these specific FFLs and their customers were part of the named plaintiff class protected by a court injunction. He warns that this does not automatically mean all FFLs nationwide are authorized to follow this process (2:34-2:59). - Advice for FFLs: The speaker strongly advises against rushing to adopt this method. He recommends consulting with local counsel, as individual states may have additional regulations that could conflict with these transfers (4:54-5:28). The video concludes by noting that while the situation is unprecedented, Kirk hopes for clear, formal communication from the ATF director in the near future (5:44-6:39). Originally Posted By Dangus: Originally Posted By Advance: Discusses the Ammoland article with the 4 FFLs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2msVwxCqQl8Summary: This video, presented by William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, discusses the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the transfer of NFA items, specifically suppressors, via ATF Form 4473 following recent litigation and injunctions (0:00-0:45). Key Takeaways: - Current Status: There is currently no official ATF or DOJ guidance on the new process for these transfers. The speaker emphasizes that while some transfers via 4473 have occurred, it remains a period of significant legal ambiguity (0:52-1:12). - Reported Compliance: The video references an article by John Crump on Ammoland, which reports that at least four FFLs (Federal Firearms Licensees) have successfully completed ATF audits after transferring suppressors using a 4473 instead of the traditional Form 4. These FFLs were found to have no violations (3:42-4:24). - Important Context: Kirk stresses that these specific FFLs and their customers were part of the named plaintiff class protected by a court injunction. He warns that this does not automatically mean all FFLs nationwide are authorized to follow this process (2:34-2:59). - Advice for FFLs: The speaker strongly advises against rushing to adopt this method. He recommends consulting with local counsel, as individual states may have additional regulations that could conflict with these transfers (4:54-5:28). The video concludes by noting that while the situation is unprecedented, Kirk hopes for clear, formal communication from the ATF director in the near future (5:44-6:39). Thank you for the summary. |
I love a good double entendre.
I won’t be going rid of any of my braces should I take them off. Problem is in the past if I had a spare brace I couldn’t resist building something to put it on just like having a spare receiver, a spare lower parts kit, whatever! It somehow always just magically turned into another gun! If I add any more guns in my house my freaking foundation is going to collapse. I think GOA should take Glock switches on next after this is finally settled. They sure as shit seem to be in common use now. I once got to shoot a G-18 and it was a blast and not that hard to control surprisingly. |
|
Originally Posted By OSUBeaver: That is some olympic caliber mental gymnastics right there Originally Posted By OSUBeaver: Originally Posted By CarlosC: Some of you, like me, who have a few guns with braces…I would not get rid of those braces just yet. Think about this- if you need to transport your new, home-made SBR across state lines, it would be easier to remove the SBR stock and slide the brace for the travel, then put the stock back on when you get to your destination. Remember, neither of the rulings exempt you from notifying the ATF about crossing state lines with your SBR. That is some olympic caliber mental gymnastics right there No crazier than having to a club to get special treatment from the government. |
I love a good double entendre.
|
Originally Posted By trails-end: No crazier than having to join a club to get special treatment from the government. This is my only issue with the whole thing ...... Imagine having to join something like "Voting rights of America" to exercise that constitutionally protected activity without govt. "infringement" |
|
Originally Posted By FreefallRet: Thats the thing, you had to wait 13 days for a muffer. All that time for a background check that could be done on the spot with a 4473. Or better yet save all that time and effort and just allow a 80% suppressor kit or 3D printed can like the lower I am printing right now. Gov is way to involved in the life of hard working law abiding citizens. More specifically, the detached and insulated bureaucrats and assholes (but I repeat myself) in DC are way too involved. It should be a momentous and extremely serious occasion when the feds actually have cause to deal with any individual citizen, because 98% of things should be handled no higher than the state level, but here we all are fretting over the remnants and ramifications of some stupid-ass "tax scheme" from our country's flirtations with the totalitarianism fad of the 1930s because some long-dead control freaks in congress just couldn't bear the thought of letting states and citizens choose for themselves whether a 15.9" rifle barrel should be grounds for 10 years in prison or not. |
 Country Run By Idiots? Laws You Won''t Believe! #shorts |
|
Originally Posted By Villafuego: This is my only issue with the whole thing ...... Imagine having to join something like "Voting rights of America" to exercise that constitutionally protected activity without govt. "infringement" Originally Posted By Villafuego: Originally Posted By trails-end: No crazier than having to join a club to get special treatment from the government. This is my only issue with the whole thing ...... Imagine having to join something like "Voting rights of America" to exercise that constitutionally protected activity without govt. "infringement" It sucks, but it springs from a limitation on the judge's authority and isn't something he just decided to do. The silliness of it is a feature and not a bug as it puts massive pressure on other jurisdictions to resolve the obvious issue of having two tiers of law. |
Joined:
Jul 2023
Posts:
24
EE: 100% (4)
SC, USA
 We Made Silencers Legal Again |
|
This video, created by Brandon Herrera, documents a significant legal and historical moment regarding the National Firearms Act (NFA). In August 2026, following a ruling by a federal judge in Texas that challenged the constitutionality of the NFA—specifically arguing that the act was only deemed constitutional because it was a tax, which is now $0—Herrera and various gun rights advocates successfully completed a transfer of firearm suppressors without the traditional $200 NFA tax stamp (6:33-7:16). Key takeaways from the video: Legal Context: The participants argue that since the tax component of the NFA has been eliminated by Congress, the legal foundation for the registration requirements has been undermined (1:50-2:36). The Event: At midnight, Herrera, along with members of Gun Owners of America (GOA) and representatives from Silencer Shop, performed the transfer to test the ruling after the Department of Justice and the ATF failed to appeal the judge's decision within the seven-day window (7:05-7:30). Cautionary Note: Herrera emphasizes that while this is a massive victory, the situation remains "extraordinarily gray" legally, as the government could still pursue broader appeals. He explicitly warns viewers not to interpret the event as legal advice to circumvent existing laws (8:54-10:00). Future Outlook: Herrera positions this as a strategic step in an ongoing, larger effort to dismantle what he views as unconstitutional firearm regulations, comparing the win to a "D-Day" battle rather than the end of the entire war (9:19-9:34). |
 BREAKING NEWS! MASSIVE HIDDEN PERMANENT NFA WIN JUST REVEALED! 4 boxes diner The NFA has been shut down at the federal level in many respects by an injunction entered in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, but gun owners still need to know about the doctrine of entrapment by estoppel. Mark Smith, Four Boxes Diner, discusses... In other words if a government official says something is legal and you comply, if someone later says it’s illegal you have a valid legal defense. |
|
Originally Posted By FreefallRet: Thats the thing, you had to wait 13 days for a muffer. All that time for a background check that could be done on the spot with a 4473. Or better yet save all that time and effort and just allow a 80% suppressor kit or 3D printed can like the lower I am printing right now. Gov is way to involved in the life of hard working law abiding citizens. Nine months if you include that they were backordered from Black Friday.
|
“I don’t want a valuable life lesson, I just want an ice cream.”
Space Corps Directive 196156: 'Any officer caught sniffing the saddle of the exercise bicycle in the women's gym will be discharged without trial.'
Space Corps Directive 196156: 'Any officer caught sniffing the saddle of the exercise bicycle in the women's gym will be discharged without trial.'
|
Originally Posted By tnriverluver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edVMPxlIIe44 boxes diner The NFA has been shut down at the federal level in many respects by an injunction entered in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, but gun owners still need to know about the doctrine of entrapment by estoppel. Mark Smith, Four Boxes Diner, discusses... In other words if a government official says something is legal and you comply, if someone later says it’s illegal you have a valid legal defense. Man...I would hate to be Robert Cekada at this event in the end of September if they don't release instructions by then...dude is absolutely going to get swarmed asking for details...lol 
|
| I’d say from what Mark says in this video you are rock solid covered atm to build away. This doesn’t include state laws but the Supreme Court has held up this defense over and over especially considering this is a permanent injunction. The legal fees fighting this shit would suck though. |
|
Originally Posted By Dangus: Summary: This video, presented by William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, discusses the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the transfer of NFA items, specifically suppressors, via ATF Form 4473 following recent litigation and injunctions (0:00-0:45). Key Takeaways: - Current Status: There is currently no official ATF or DOJ guidance on the new process for these transfers. The speaker emphasizes that while some transfers via 4473 have occurred, it remains a period of significant legal ambiguity (0:52-1:12). - Reported Compliance: The video references an article by John Crump on Ammoland, which reports that at least four FFLs (Federal Firearms Licensees) have successfully completed ATF audits after transferring suppressors using a 4473 instead of the traditional Form 4. These FFLs were found to have no violations (3:42-4:24). - Important Context: Kirk stresses that these specific FFLs and their customers were part of the named plaintiff class protected by a court injunction. He warns that this does not automatically mean all FFLs nationwide are authorized to follow this process (2:34-2:59). - Advice for FFLs: The speaker strongly advises against rushing to adopt this method. He recommends consulting with local counsel, as individual states may have additional regulations that could conflict with these transfers (4:54-5:28). The video concludes by noting that while the situation is unprecedented, Kirk hopes for clear, formal communication from the ATF director in the near future (5:44-6:39). Originally Posted By Dangus: Originally Posted By Advance: Discusses the Ammoland article with the 4 FFLs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2msVwxCqQl8Summary: This video, presented by William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, discusses the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the transfer of NFA items, specifically suppressors, via ATF Form 4473 following recent litigation and injunctions (0:00-0:45). Key Takeaways: - Current Status: There is currently no official ATF or DOJ guidance on the new process for these transfers. The speaker emphasizes that while some transfers via 4473 have occurred, it remains a period of significant legal ambiguity (0:52-1:12). - Reported Compliance: The video references an article by John Crump on Ammoland, which reports that at least four FFLs (Federal Firearms Licensees) have successfully completed ATF audits after transferring suppressors using a 4473 instead of the traditional Form 4. These FFLs were found to have no violations (3:42-4:24). - Important Context: Kirk stresses that these specific FFLs and their customers were part of the named plaintiff class protected by a court injunction. He warns that this does not automatically mean all FFLs nationwide are authorized to follow this process (2:34-2:59). - Advice for FFLs: The speaker strongly advises against rushing to adopt this method. He recommends consulting with local counsel, as individual states may have additional regulations that could conflict with these transfers (4:54-5:28). The video concludes by noting that while the situation is unprecedented, Kirk hopes for clear, formal communication from the ATF director in the near future (5:44-6:39). Thank you for saving me a click and the time to watch that video. So, basically nothing new. God I love AI. |
|
Originally Posted By tnriverluver: I’d say from what Mark says in this video you are rock solid covered atm to build away. This doesn’t include state laws but the Supreme Court has held up this defense over and over especially considering this is a permanent injunction. The legal fees fighting this shit would suck though. Building/DIY/"former Form 1" as long as you're a covered party is a clearer situation than purchases moving through a system of regulated manufacturers and dealers. |
This is...a clue - Pat_Rogers
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
|
Originally Posted By st33ve0: Man...I would hate to be Robert Cekada at this event in the end of September if they don't release instructions by then...dude is absolutely going to get swarmed asking for details...lol https://i.imgur.com/REdNI1C.png How incredible is it to have the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in that group. |
This is...a clue - Pat_Rogers
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
I'm not adequately aluminumized for this thread. - gonzo_beyondo
CO, MI, OR - Please lobby your legislators to end discrimination against non-resident CCW permit holders
How do I get out of this chickenshit outfit?
Joined:
Feb 2011
Posts:
16523
EE: 100% (22)
TX, USA
This guy makes a lot of Texas gun show videos. I hate going to gun shows because of the crowds and I haven't found anything good/fairly priced in the last 10 years, but I watch some of his videos to see what are at the shows. He has made two videos (this weekend and last weekend) at Texas gun shows and found several vendors doing 4473 suppressors at the shows. Are Suppressors Going Same Day at the Texas Gun Shows ? |
|
ATF Approves 4473 Suppressor Sales? (But Don't Get Too Excited) Four FFLS have transferred suppressors via 4473 and have been audited by the ATF. |
American by birth. Southern by the grace of God.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
Any opinions expressed are my own and do not reflect upon any agency or organization with which I may be employed or affiliated.
|
Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2msVwxCqQl8Four FFLS have transferred suppressors via 4473 and have been audited by the ATF. Until they publish one of the 4 ROVs indicating where the IOI acknowledged such, that claim is worthless. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By tnriverluver: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edVMPxlIIe44 boxes diner The NFA has been shut down at the federal level in many respects by an injunction entered in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, but gun owners still need to know about the doctrine of entrapment by estoppel. Mark Smith, Four Boxes Diner, discusses... In other words if a government official says something is legal and you comply, if someone later says it’s illegal you have a valid legal defense. You may have a defense to present. That doesn’t mean it will be successful. |
