Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration on "untaxed" firearms (Page 153 of 195)
Big girls make all your dreams come true!
Joined:
Dec 2001
Posts:
63152
EE: 100% (4)
WV, USA
|
This is what I got out of the injunction... Attached File Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By diesel2: This is what I got out of the injunction... https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/276807/1489_jpg-3815940.JPGhttps://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/276807/1480_jpg-3815941.JPG Is that a factory SBR? I’ve seen a few of the 9mms that were short from the factory. |
polyoxybenzylmethylenglycolanhydride
Joined:
Nov 2004
Posts:
26957
EE: 100% (390)
TX, USA
|
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. And how did your SBR get from your home State to the destination State? Did it lose its nature in your home State and regain its nature in the destination State? Was it teleported so it did not encounter a State line? |
The Second Amendment: Preserving our right to petition the government - with malice.
"I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'."
Virginia Is For Loners (™)
"I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'."
Virginia Is For Loners (™)
|
Originally Posted By broken_reticle: One local shop had done some 4473s, just posted a video today saying they are going back to requiring form 4. Basically their lawyer talked them into it. |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
|
Originally Posted By diesel2: No I hacksawed 6" off the barrel, 45acp. Originally Posted By diesel2: Originally Posted By PeepEater: Is that a factory SBR? I’ve seen a few of the 9mms that were short from the factory. No I hacksawed 6" off the barrel, 45acp. Sweet. It’s on my list What are you doing for a hand guard? Threading .578x28? |
|
Originally Posted By Cypher214: I fail to see the logic. As though any theoretical consequences go away if you've only done SOME 4473's? Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By broken_reticle: One local shop had done some 4473s, just posted a video today saying they are going back to requiring form 4. Basically their lawyer talked them into it. Idaho. Beats me. Trying to be a born again virgin I guess. |
|
Originally Posted By broken_reticle: One local shop had done some 4473s, just posted a video today saying they are going back to requiring form 4. Basically their lawyer talked them into it. I think the saying is, after the first one, the rest are free. |
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 shadycoh: Each may be a separate charge if shit goes wrong. So it's better to have 10 charges than 150 counts Originally Posted By shadycoh: Originally Posted By Cypher214: I fail to see the logic. As though any theoretical consequences go away if you've only done SOME 4473's? Each may be a separate charge if shit goes wrong. So it's better to have 10 charges than 150 counts |
Everything posted above is factual. Maybe.
Joined:
Jun 2026
Posts:
143
EE: 0% (0)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By diesel2: No I hacksawed 6" off the barrel, 45acp. Originally Posted By diesel2: Originally Posted By PeepEater: Is that a factory SBR? I’ve seen a few of the 9mms that were short from the factory. No I hacksawed 6" off the barrel, 45acp. Yeet! |
Life member of CRPA. FPC contributor.
|
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: 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" In many states if you are a registered Republican you may not vote in the Democratic primary, and vice versa. Originally Posted By bigbore: 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. Attached File |
Heller II - Challenging DC's bans on semi-automatic rifles, large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, and its onerous and expensive handgun registration process. http://www.HellerFoundation.org/
|
Originally Posted By tree-hugger: The problem, IMO, is that almost no one seems to be humble enough to take constructive criticism for what it is. Originally Posted By tree-hugger: 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.  The problem, IMO, is that almost no one seems to be humble enough to take constructive criticism for what it is. I think knowledge/training also plays a part too. Until this moment, I hadn't considered how to get an AI summary of a video. I know I could have asked AI how, but I simply hadn't considered it. |
"I do believe that some gun laws are needed and yes, I am a Republican" ~ tc556guy - NRA Member
|
Originally Posted By Lexington: And how did your SBR get from your home State to the destination State? Did it lose its nature in your home State and regain its nature in the destination State? Was it teleported so it did not encounter a State line? |
"During the second 100 days, we will design, build and open a library dedicated to my first 100 days." -Barack Obama, May 9 2009
|
Originally Posted By AR4U: Yes, if you put a brace on it it is no longer an SBR. It becomes one again when you put the stock back on. Originally Posted By AR4U: Originally Posted By Lexington: And how did your SBR get from your home State to the destination State? Did it lose its nature in your home State and regain its nature in the destination State? Was it teleported so it did not encounter a State line? I know that. The poster indicated that he could have an SBR in his State, put a brace on it, transport it to another State without notice (legal), and then put the stock back on in the other State. In his scenario, the SBR went from one State to another without any notice to the ATF that the rifle would be an SBR at the destination. I think the brace in transit did nothing for him relative to ATF compliance for notice because he reconstituted the SBR at the destination. Presto! Take a 20" rifle built on an SBR'd lower, transport it to another State, and then put the short upper on it. Will the ATF be fooled? |
The Second Amendment: Preserving our right to petition the government - with malice.
"I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'."
Virginia Is For Loners (™)
"I guess it comes down to a simple choice, really. Get busy livin' or get busy dyin'."
Virginia Is For Loners (™)
Joined:
Mar 2025
Posts:
1127
EE: 100% (30)
USA
How do I get out of this chickenshit outfit?
Joined:
Feb 2011
Posts:
16529
EE: 100% (22)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By wherewildthingsare: Local SOT is doing 4473 cans tomorrow for GOA members with proof of membership. A step in the right direction. They list of FFLs doing this need to keep on rolling. The ATF and DOJ had their chance to put out something, anything, but they’ve chosen not to. Even if they haven’t come up with an exact plan, the fact they’ve said nothing is a real dick move if they’re planning on some form of strict enforcement. |
|
Originally Posted By Lexington: I know that. The poster indicated that he could have an SBR in his State, put a brace on it, transport it to another State without notice (legal), and then put the stock back on in the other State. In his scenario, the SBR went from one State to another without any notice to the ATF that the rifle would be an SBR at the destination. I think the brace in transit did nothing for him relative to ATF compliance for notice because he reconstituted the SBR at the destination. Presto! Take a 20" rifle built on an SBR'd lower, transport it to another State, and then put the short upper on it. Will the ATF be fooled? Originally Posted By Lexington: Originally Posted By AR4U: Originally Posted By Lexington: And how did your SBR get from your home State to the destination State? Did it lose its nature in your home State and regain its nature in the destination State? Was it teleported so it did not encounter a State line? I know that. The poster indicated that he could have an SBR in his State, put a brace on it, transport it to another State without notice (legal), and then put the stock back on in the other State. In his scenario, the SBR went from one State to another without any notice to the ATF that the rifle would be an SBR at the destination. I think the brace in transit did nothing for him relative to ATF compliance for notice because he reconstituted the SBR at the destination. Presto! Take a 20" rifle built on an SBR'd lower, transport it to another State, and then put the short upper on it. Will the ATF be fooled? For an unregistered SBR, does it even matter? |
Life member of CRPA. FPC contributor.
Joined:
Mar 2025
Posts:
1129
EE: 100% (30)
USA
|
Originally Posted By HKH: Such awesome info to help the bros in your state out. Well done Originally Posted By HKH: Originally Posted By wherewildthingsare: Local SOT is doing 4473 cans tomorrow for GOA members with proof of membership. A step in the right direction. Such awesome info to help the bros in your state out. Well done 
|
|
Originally Posted By diesel2: This is what I got out of the injunction... https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/276807/1489_jpg-3815940.JPGhttps://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/276807/1480_jpg-3815941.JPG That's really slick.  3d printed suppressor would be even slickerer. 
|
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
|
I’m glad things are moving in the right direction, but I still don’t understand how the ruling only applies to the plaintiffs. The law is either unconstitutional or it’s not. This is like saying you have to be a member of the ACLU to exercise your right to free speech, otherwise the government can put you in jail for something they don’t like. Why has the ATF not issued guidance on this yet? It’s been nearly 2 weeks. |
I'm not lazy, I just really enjoy doing nothing.
Joined:
Mar 2019
Posts:
15270
EE: 100% (17)
USA
|
Originally Posted By Cycolac: It's the government, when you need/want them to act quickly they don't and vice versa.  Originally Posted By Cycolac: Originally Posted By Bunn19: Why has the ATF not issued guidance on this yet? It’s been nearly 2 weeks. It's the government, when you need/want them to act quickly they don't and vice versa. They aren't going to do anything till the DOJ does something imo. |
|
Originally Posted By Bunn19: I’m glad things are moving in the right direction, but I still don’t understand how the ruling only applies to the plaintiffs. The law is either unconstitutional or it’s not. This is like saying you have to be a member of the ACLU to exercise your right to free speech, otherwise the government can put you in jail for something they don’t like. Why has the ATF not issued guidance on this yet? It’s been nearly 2 weeks. It only applies to the plaintiffs because that's as far as the judge could extend the relief. He didn't (couldn't?) vacate the provisions, so we get an injunction instead. Probably at least in part because of everyone's favorite Hawaii judge trying to extend the Aloha spirit to the mainland by blocking Trump's EOs constantly, SCOTUS slapped down the notion that any random district judge could issue nationwide injunctions. So, while that's helpful for keeping leftist saboteurs in the judiciary from grinding things like immigration enforcement to a halt, it also cuts both ways and means this judge had to limit his injunction to the people in front of him seeking relief. Thankfully that at least included a few national organizations that you can join for a minimal cost, so functionally it's an opt-in nationwide injunction. Just think of the $25 a year as a charitable donation to a good cause and forget you're a GOA member until it comes time to buy a can if you really want  Popular theories for why gayTF hasn't issued anything range from "they're running around scared shitless and panicking because they don't know what to do" to "they're intentionally slow-rolling the process so they can intimidate people into not embracing freedom without getting slapped down by the judge". Take your pick honestly, nobody on the outside really has a clue. My personal suspicion is a mixture of not knowing how to allow themselves to allow us to be free mixed with internal conflict keeping them from developing a coherent process to put out. I'm also a little sympathetic to the idea that they may be trying to wait out the midterms so that they don't piss off voters with a proposed rule, but who knows if that's really a factor. |
| They can appeal the ruling until early October so they might be deciding how they want to play this. Probably a little factional infighting between those who want to be as restrictive as possible while still complying with the ruling on paper and those who will interpret it more openly. |
|
Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: They aren't going to do anything till the DOJ does something imo. Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: Originally Posted By Cycolac: Originally Posted By Bunn19: Why has the ATF not issued guidance on this yet? It’s been nearly 2 weeks. It's the government, when you need/want them to act quickly they don't and vice versa. They aren't going to do anything till the DOJ does something imo. Their parent organization that is responsible for the agency that is enjoined? The DoJ should treat it with the same seriousness that their subordinate needs to. |
|
Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot: @Seven-Shooter Your state not being a party doesnt matter it covers GOA members nationwide. So yes baring any state law you are free to build up a receiver as an SBR, however you still have to engrave it. If you join FPCAC or any of the other Jensen plaintiffs instead or in addition to GOA you do not have to engrave anything. With regard to letting your membership expire, no idea. The injunction covers current and future members. No idea how that would apply to a once a member. You Man I would hate to be the test case if the Kentucky State Police or ANY of the Popo’s where to pull you over with a SBR or SBS and your trying to explain the GOA, FPCAC to them. 😂 Maybe someone can opine on that. |
This thread is a shit storm tornado headed for the Arf.com trailer park. - ArmaNotSoLite
We're all human, we're all flawed, but in the end it's just animals mashing genitalia together. - XCRmonger
We're all human, we're all flawed, but in the end it's just animals mashing genitalia together. - XCRmonger
|
Originally Posted By AttachedFile: Interview with current ATF director from June 2026 speaking about braces and SBRs. Seems kinda relevant to this discussion. He basically says he can't tell you going from brace to SBR without following the NFA is okay to do. But the ATF will not be going directly after people that somehow turns a pistol/brace into a SBR. If you get arrested for whatever and the arresting agency sends the weapon into the ATF for review then you may catch a NFA charge. But, its up to DOJ after that if they want to pursue or not. https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1H2Rh9cvC4/ https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-8kGD97GnNMPretty much this for now. https://media3.giphy.com/media/3o6YfWMzO7kjG9gG3e/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cen9xuww5l0l5lfjsqybfflp445z9se8fqsz07pno&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g |
Coyote with 40 people crammed into a minivan gets into a chase with DPS, Paco over estimates his driving abilities and *whmmo!* the Astrovan of Immigration becomes a Pinata of Pain, hurling broken bodies like so many tasty pieces of cheap candy...
|
Originally Posted By wherewildthingsare: https://media1.giphy.com/media/gK0xtjxHfeGqI/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cpstwa9rv0w5rv1qz4mmd5ryra75kyqrvdtwmgpar&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g |
I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me and say "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals.
Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis
Sic semper evello mortem tyrannis
|
Originally Posted By Bubbles: In many states if you are a registered Republican you may not vote in the Democratic primary, and vice versa. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/this-gif-793.gif Originally Posted By Bubbles: 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" In many states if you are a registered Republican you may not vote in the Democratic primary, and vice versa. Originally Posted By bigbore: 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. /media/mediaFiles/sharedAlbum/this-gif-793.gif You still get to vote. |
I love a good double entendre.
|
Originally Posted By Lexington: I know that. The poster indicated that he could have an SBR in his State, put a brace on it, transport it to another State without notice (legal), and then put the stock back on in the other State. In his scenario, the SBR went from one State to another without any notice to the ATF that the rifle would be an SBR at the destination. I think the brace in transit did nothing for him relative to ATF compliance for notice because he reconstituted the SBR at the destination. Presto! Take a 20" rifle built on an SBR'd lower, transport it to another State, and then put the short upper on it. Will the ATF be fooled? Who cares? The mental gymnastics you guys go through to try and circumvent a bullshit law is beyond exhausting. |
Esstac’s Retarded Social Media Influencer
|
Originally Posted By Scott_S: Help me Harmeet. You’re my only hope. Who the heck knows what the AFT is gonna do. I just hope we can get a lot more 4473 cans out there in the wild before AFT’s hangover wears off. Fuck that. I want to be able to pick up on of these chunks of metal at every corner convenience store no 4473 involved. 
|
|
Here's my uneducated wooden nickels opinion. FATF hasn't made a decision/declaration/guidance yet because they are waiting to see what DoJ does. If they put out guidance that says "Release the Kraken" and then the DoJ decides to appeal and gets another "stay" then they have to reverse that and it puts SOT/Individuals in a bit of a pickle. So short story long it's Govt at its finest. Govt isn't the solution it's the problem. |
Fuck Cancer. Love you Pop.
|
Originally Posted By akguy1985: Just joined FPC in addition to GOA. https://media0.giphy.com/media/YYfEjWVqZ6NDG/200.webp?cid=8dc8958cxugfojtw2ed1la18h388ywmz4v1tq2n12k3xlnrn&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g  but be careful of the distinction between FPC and FPC Action Committee (FPCAC) if you're relying on membership for plaintiff status in this or other suits. It gets a little weird.
|
|
Originally Posted By tnriverluver: Fuck that. I want to be able to pick up on of these chunks of metal at every corner convenience store no 4473 involved. I mean, we all do. 4473s are a first step to that because the stupid GCA is going to have to be the next target after we liberate these things from the NFA. |
|
Originally Posted By HKH: So many cucks and cowards Yeah, those attorneys from Wiley Reid whose update I posted a while back sure are pussies. I mean, what could they know as plaintiffs' attorneys actually involved in the case that you don't, right? If only those guys knew as much as you do, they'd never say things like there is still significant legal risk for FFLs doing transfers on 4473s. |
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.”
|
Originally Posted By Bunn19: I’m glad things are moving in the right direction, but I still don’t understand how the ruling only applies to the plaintiffs. The law is either unconstitutional or it’s not. Federal districts courts are limited to addressing the parties actually before the court unless the lawsuit involves a certified class action. This has been abused in the past (i.e. the judge in Hawaii issuing nationwide injunctions against Trump's policies), and so the Supreme Court made the limitations very clear and specific in Trump v. CASA. The judge in this case made his ruling as broad as he possibly could with respect to the corporate and organization plaintiffs by extending the ruling to cover all current and future customers and members. He literally filled the entire field between the sidelines drawn by SCOTUS. |
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.”
|
Originally Posted By Glockadoodadoo: Man I would hate to be the test case if the Kentucky State Police or ANY of the Popo’s where to pull you over with a SBR or SBS and your trying to explain the GOA, FPCAC to them. 😂 Maybe someone can opine on that. Does Kentucky have a state law banning SBR or SBS? Federal gun laws are a lot like federal immigration laws. Absent a STATE law local cops can’t enforce them even if they wanted to. There is no state charge to arrest for or book to. The city and county jails usually don’t even have the federal codes in their booking software, to say nothing of who pays the booking fees. Sheriffs transportation is set up to take pre trial inmates to county courthouses not federal court. All that’s to say the Federal law enforcement and court systems operates separately from city, county and state systems. |
Life member of CRPA. FPC contributor.