ATF Ends Suppressor Registration Enforcement Nationwide
ATF ends suppressor registration enforcement nationwide after a federal court ruling. State restrictions and background checks remain.
When Congress eliminated the tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and several other firearms last year, it left the registration and prior-approval machinery intact. A federal court ruled in August that the machinery could not survive without the tax. On Friday, the Trump administration extended that result to everyone.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announced the nationwide policy Friday, October 9. It covers items whose making and transfer taxes Congress reduced to zero in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, including short-barreled shotguns and the statutory category “any other weapons.”
In August, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled against the remaining registration and approval provisions in the consolidated Silencer Shop Foundation and Jensen cases. With no revenue to collect on those items, the court held that the provisions could no longer rest on Congress’s taxing power. The injunction protected the plaintiffs and others covered by the judgment, rather than everyone nationwide.
Attorney General Todd Blanche declined to appeal. Friday’s guidance extends the administration’s nonenforcement policy to everyone otherwise subject to the affected requirements.
ATF Director Rob Cekada addressed the change in a statement accompanying the guidance:
“The direction from the President, Congress, and the courts is clear. ATF is now following suit with our enforcement posture while continuing to ensure we remain focused where we are needed the most: combatting violent crime in American communities.”
A buyer will still fill out Form 4473 at the gun shop. The dealer has to keep records and run a NICS background check unless the transaction qualifies for an exemption under the Gun Control Act.
Machine guns and destructive devices were left out of the tax cut. Their $200 tax remains, along with the rest of the NFA requirements. Owners of short-barreled rifles and shotguns also still need approval on Form 20 to transport them across state lines.
ATF has no authority to waive a state’s gun laws. Some of those laws require the very registration the agency now lets owners skip.
The Firearms Policy Coalition sent letters to 15 state attorneys general Friday, asking them to halt enforcement of laws that condition possession of certain firearms on compliance with federal NFA procedures. The group wants legislative repeal to follow. The full list: Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin.
Whether an unregistered suppressor satisfies a particular state’s law is a question ATF leaves to state and local authorities. For owners who still need federal registration to avoid a state charge, the agency will continue accepting applications. Apparently, eliminating the federal requirement doesn’t eliminate the need for the federal form.
The Second Amendment Foundation is keeping its Brown and Roberts lawsuits going. Executive Director Adam Kraut described what Congress left behind:
“In each of our three cases challenging the NFA, the argument remains the same – when the tax on silencers and short-barreled rifles was eliminated in the One Big Beautiful Bill, Congress’ taxing authority was stripped with it. The registration scheme for these arms, however, remained.”
Another reason to finish the job in court or Congress. ATF warns that an owner would not automatically be grandfathered in if enforcement resumed. The law generally doesn’t allow someone to register an unregistered NFA item after the fact.
A future attorney general could revive enforcement. The only durable fix is removing the requirements from the statute entirely.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I fail to understand why the form 4473 is still required,
A suppressor is an accessory.
And, I wonder if I could go into production without dealing with the ATF.
While it is common sensically an accessory, the fact is it was regulated under the NFA as if it was a firearm. So it is a firearm under the law. Even though the tax (and now registration) is gone, the legal status (“firearm”) remains. Here’s where Milhouse would step in and be pedantic, prompting others to state something similar to “the law is stupid, then.”
The law, if it had proper jurisdiction, could state “For purposes of this legislation, a moose is a mouse.” And, that would be that.
Libertarian law professor Eugene Volokh reminds people that a legislature can legally declare that bumblebees are fish, and we have to eat it.
The law is often stupid. However it is no longer a bachelor; it no longer assumes that a husband is responsible for everything his wife does.
combatting violent crime in American communities
Here’s the thing, though. What constitutional authority does the federal government have to police crimes? The only ones I see (and even those are mostly implied) are things that cross state boundaries, crimes on federal land, the various Indian nations, and borders/customs.
The inclusion of suppressors in NFA34 had more to do with poaching of game during the great depression than with issues of use in “more conventional” crimes as depicted on TV. It was interesting that for a long time, cans were used on revolvers in films, etc, where because of the cylinder gap they are minimally effective vs a closed/locked breech in a semi or bolt action firearm.
NFA branch is still processing forms for those who need them to comply at state level.
I had heard that about the original purpose. But it’s still true that almost all restrictions on “arms” in modern times are because legislators have seen too many movies and heard too many crime dramas. From machine guns down to switchblades on to knuckle dusters.
(Also, every weapon restriction throughout history has been intended to keep some group down and under control.)
The Constitution of the United States [has] delegated to the Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offences against the laws of nations, and no other crimes whatever.
–THOMAS JEFFERSON, THE KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS
America started out with three federal crimes: treason, counterfeiting, and piracy. In 1998, the American Bar Association counted more than 3,300 separate federal criminal offenses on the books, more than 40% of which had been enacted in just the past 30 years… Today, the Congressional Research Service says it no longer can even say how many federal crimes exist. Are we that much more evil than we were 200 years ago that we need this many laws to keep us off each other? Or has the nanny state veered completely out of control?
–REBECCA HAGELIN
As such, it doesn’t. But the enumerated powers doctrine controls only what laws congress can make, not to what purposes the executive can put those laws. If congress makes a law that falls squarely under one of its enumerated powers, for instance a tax, or a regulation on interstate trade, and the executive notices that enforcing it will have a positive effect on the crime rate, it can enforce the hell out of that law even though its purpose is crime suppression rather than whatever congress is alleged to have originally had in mind.
Of course, none of that applies to the NFA, which the Congressional Record illustrates very clearly was sold directly to Congress by a conniving AG as legislation that would use the taxing power as a complete pretext for suppression the ownership of firearms they didn’t like.
Yeah, but pretexts are allowed. Nothing in the constitution forbids them.
I like to think they debase the “full faith and credit of the United States” that they print on the greenbacks,.
Some of those [state] laws require the very registration the agency now lets owners skip.
Here’s the thing on that – I didn’t think a state could obligate the federal government to run a program for their purposes. They can use a program the federal government implements, but they shouldn’t be able to force it unless it’s required by law. Ideally (IMO) the ATF should be able to tell those states requiring forms for those items that, so sorry, too bad, but we are putting any such forms received into File 13 (AKA the Circular File) and they will not be indexed, signed, nor returned to the submitter.
If the state wants to infringe on rights, it’s all on its own, should be the correct answer now.
the agency will continue accepting applications
It shouldn’t. I wonder if I can sue for fraud, waste, and abuse for spending money and manpower on that when there is no authorizing (constitutional) legislation to fund or require it?
No, even if that were the case (and it isn’t) you wouldn’t have standing, because you’re not more affected than the general public is.
The state isn’t obligating the feds to run a program for their purposes. They just have to say that citizens can’t do XYZ without receiving written permission from the fedguv. The fact that the fedguv doesn’t run such a program (anymore) just makes the law “better” as far as they are concerned, because now the citizens they don’t like can’t do anything at all.
In 2016 in Nevada. the gun grabbers massively funded and thereby passed an initiative to “close the gun show loophole” (private person-to-person firearms sales) by requiring them all to pass an NCIC check. But they screwed up, because Nevada had special status as a “point of contact” state, meaning their deal with the NCIC was that Nevada ran all their own firearms background checks. The NCIC said they weren’t going to perform private checks for Nevada because that wasn’t part of their deal. And the Nevada AG declared the referendum a dead letter.
But that’s because the Nevada AG was a decent man, as opposed to, say, Governor Katie Hobbs of Arizona. Our legislature already passed a bill to make compatible what the state and the fedguv required for suppressors. Hobbs vetoed it, leaving AZ gun owners in legal limbo.
I know of several FFL/SOT here in AZ that are selling silencers on the 4473. Scottsdale Gun Club was one of the 1st I heard was doing it immediately after the decision came down back in August.
GWB, you have this backwards.
They can’t.
And the states will say thank you very much, that’s exactly what we want from you. Our law says that it’s illegal to possess a suppressor that is not registered with you, so if you’re no longer accepting registrations then all new suppressors in our state will automatically be illegal. Thank you for making our hoplophobic dreams come true.
That’s why the ATF is saying no, we will continue to accept registrations from those who choose to submit them, so that people in those states are not turned into criminals.
A future attorney general could revive enforcement.
In a just Republic, that should get him impeached at a minimum. Ideally it would see him hanged for a tyrant.
Of course, in a just Republic, we wouldn’t worry about the judiciary playing word games to break the very founding documents of the USA, either.
Are you saying this only because you’ve already decided the law in question is unconstitutional, or would you apply this to all situations? Suppose there’s some law that we like, and that has been enforced by administrations of both parties until the Biden years, when Judge Boasberg held it unconstitutional and enjoined enforcement as to the plaintiffs, and Garland said we’re not appealing, we’re going to stop enforcing it everywhere. Then Trump comes along and the AG restarts enforcement. Would you really support impeachment for that?!
I need to press out some sub-sonic 10mm after I have a talk with the guy at the LGS.
The great myth of the “silencer” is that it is an aid to crime. Number of suppressors used in real crimes over decades is counted on fingers and toes… of one person. See below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJOE-0swW1s
i imagine the pearls have been clutched into powder. Some states still ban them (all Dem controlled … but I repeat myself) while others will need to rewrite and pass laws for this. Alaska being one of them…. depending on whether a BLUE dem is voted governor by Los Anchorage.
Intentionally rendering suppressor owners criminals is a dream of Dems.
Number of suppressors used in real crimes over decades is counted on fingers and toes… of one person.
So, see? It obviously worked!
/eyeroll/
I would have written a headline that starts with “ATF Capitulates” rather than one that gives the way more credit than they deserve.
I received a bunch of calls, emails and text messages starting Friday afternoon asking when I was going to start transferring silencers, SBRs and SBSs. My response was to give me a week to think about it. I have a legitimate concern about a future (D) congress or administration erasing this decision and turning people into instant felons. I have a feeling this will be at the top of the list of things to go after once the New Mexico legislature meets in 2027.
I’ve had too many people waste too much of my time and get pissy with me about answering questions about this stuff ever since the court ruling that I’m to the point that they can all go felony themselves.
A future congress could reinstate the tax, and thus also the enforcement mechanism, or it could re-pass the NFA on some other grounds, using another of its enumerated powers. But it couldn’t make that change retroactive, so it couldn’t turn people into instant felons. It would have to give people with unregistered suppressors a chance to register them.
It certainly couldn’t literally “erase the decision”, by legislating that Judge Hendrix was wrong. City of Boerne explicitly says Congress has no power to interpret laws. Congress makes the law, the courts tell Congress what it meant, and Congress can’t say no, that’s not what we meant. All it can do is make a new law that’s better written to reflect what it wants.
Congress could pass the Temporal Adjustment Act in which the past is deemed the future.
That would certainly confound George Orwell.
Ex post facto isn’t in the Dem lexicon.
It all started when Bond shot Professor Dent in the back.
There was additional clarification presented by ATF regarding SBR, SBS, “Braces” and modifications. That change allowed the brace to be removed from “pistols” and stocks to be added. Vertical foregrips are now allowed. I have observed sales of these items have been in the many thousands resulting in dealers becoming “out of stock”. Many shops here in Idaho are sell suppressors with a form 4473, a background check and verification of membership in GOA (main litigant in the 5th circuit case). The clarification will also allow the affected parties to sell SBR’s and SBS the same way. A major part of the 1934 NFA act is dead. What will be the push back? Interesting times ahead. But, all the horses have left the barn and that barn is burning to the ground.
The goal should be buy…buy..buy…buy!!!! I know the Dems would love to imprison millions of voters and remove their voting rights.. No illegal alien overhead.
Now destroy the registry/list
Assuming this isn’t just election theatrics, that issue may be about to get spicy.
Fascinating. I noticed that the ATF spends a lot of time emphasizing how old records are vital in tracing a weapon’s first purchaser, but barely bothers even hand-waving an explanation of what use that information is. If I were in a position to question these people I’d want them to tell me exactly how many crimes have ever been solved by knowing who first purchased the gun used. We have this elaborate gun-tracing system; how many times has it been of any practical use? As far as I know the answer is “none; never”.