Just after midnight on August 13, Brandon Herrera and Texas State Rep. Wes Virdell walked into Silencer Shop in Leander, Texas and did something Americans have not been able to do through an ordinary commercial transaction in generations. They acquired suppressors without submitting an ATF Form 4, without waiting for ATF approval, and without registering the suppressors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
Gun Owners of America called them the first lawful commercial suppressor transfers without NFA registration since the National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934.
But there is an important catch: It doesn’t automatically protect every FFL. And it doesn’t mean you can walk into any gun shop, buy any suppressor, and simply announce that the NFA no longer applies.
The details matter. A lot.
How Congress Pulled the Tax Foundation Out From Under the NFA
For decades, the National Firearms Act imposed a making or transfer tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, machine guns, destructive devices and other firearms falling within the statute. Along with those taxes came the federal registration machinery: applications, fingerprints, government approval, registration and criminal penalties for noncompliance.
Then Congress eliminated the making and transfer taxes on four NFA categories effective January 1, 2026: Suppressors. Short-barreled rifles. Short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons.”
Machine guns and destructive devices remained taxed. Congress also left the NFA’s separate special occupational tax on importers, manufacturers and dealers in place. Yet ATF continued enforcing the registration, application and approval machinery attached to the taxes Congress had reduced to zero.
That’s what the plaintiffs challenged in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, which was consolidated with Jensen v. ATF.
On August 5, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix agreed with them. The court held that Congress had enacted the challenged NFA provisions under its taxing power—and that once Congress eliminated the taxes those provisions were designed to support, those requirements could no longer be justified under that constitutional power.
The court therefore entered a permanent injunction preventing DOJ and ATF from enforcing specified NFA provisions against the protected plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members and customers—both current and future.
The court didn’t need to decide the plaintiffs’ separate Second Amendment claims.
Why Herrera and Virdell Could Walk Out Without a Form 4
Herrera and Virdell had an unusually clear set of facts. Both were members of Gun Owners of America, one of the associational plaintiffs. They were also completing their transactions through Silencer Shop.
Before the transfers occurred, GOA and Silencer Shop notified DOJ and ATF in writing that they intended to complete the transactions without filing a Form 4, without requesting ATF transfer approval and without registering the suppressors in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. The notice specifically identified Herrera and Virdell as GOA members and Silencer Shop customers.
Judge Hendrix had temporarily stayed his final judgment for seven days to allow the federal government to seek appellate relief. That seven-day stay expired and the transactions proceeded shortly after midnight on August 13 under the injunction then in effect.
That distinction matters. Herrera and Virdell were not given special permission by ATF to ignore federal law. They were relying on a federal court order preventing ATF from enforcing specified NFA provisions against people and transactions covered by the injunction.
Does Living in Texas Mean You Can Do the Same Thing? No.
This may be the most important takeaway from the entire case. Texas was one of 15 plaintiff states, along with Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming. But the court didn’t turn every resident of those states into a plaintiff.
The state-based portion of the injunction protects the plaintiff states themselves and, where applicable, their agencies and political subdivisions. So an ordinary Texan cannot simply say: “Texas was a plaintiff, therefore I’m personally exempt from the NFA.”
That isn’t what Judge Hendrix ordered.
At the same time, the injunction’s separate protections for members and qualifying customers aren’t written as benefits available only to residents of those 15 states. That means there are really two different questions:
First: Are you personally or transactionally within the federal injunction?
Second: Does the law of your state independently allow the possession and transfer you are trying to complete?
Those are not the same question.
Membership May Provide One Path to Protection
The court’s order protects current and future members of the associational plaintiffs where applicable. That’s significant. It means someone relying on the membership side of the injunction should be an actual member of a protected organization—not merely a subscriber, donor, email recipient or general supporter. Judge Hendrix specifically declined to extend protection to vaguely defined “supporters.”
So if you intend to rely on associational membership, Texas Gun Rights strongly recommends becoming a documented member of an applicable plaintiff organization before attempting the transaction and keeping proof of that membership.
But membership alone doesn’t answer every question. The buyer may be protected while the FFL’s position is less clear. The firearm itself may present another legal issue. State law may impose an independent restriction.
And the identity of the actual purchaser matters. For example, a person shouldn’t assume that his individual membership automatically extends to a trust, LLC or other separate entity purchasing the firearm. The injunction is party-specific and those entity questions should be reviewed by competent firearms counsel before relying on the order.
Customers of Protected Businesses Have Another Path
Judge Hendrix also extended the injunction to current and future customers of the commercial plaintiffs and customers of commercial members of the associational plaintiffs. Why? Because if ATF could continue imposing the challenged NFA requirements on their customers, those requirements would continue deterring people from doing business with the protected companies.
But the court drew a critical line: Customer protection is transaction-specific. The injunction covers qualifying customer transactions with the protected plaintiffs or their commercial members. It does not give someone a permanent personal exemption covering every NFA firearm he owns, buys, makes or transfers for the rest of his life.
The named commercial plaintiffs in the Silencer Shop case include B&T USA, Palmetto State Armory and SilencerCo Weapons Research. The consolidated Jensen case includes FFL Hot Shots Custom.
Silencer Shop has also published its own implementation guidance stating that qualifying suppressors and AOWs in its program must originate from Silencer Shop or another named plaintiff. That’s why the seller—and even the source of the particular product—can matter.
Buying a qualifying suppressor through a protected commercial chain is very different from walking into an unrelated FFL with an unrelated suppressor and assuming the same protection automatically follows you.
Before You Try to Buy a Suppressor Without a Form 4
This ruling is a major victory. But this is also an active federal case involving criminal firearms statutes.
Do not treat a headline or social-media post as your legal protection.
Before attempting a no-Form-4 suppressor purchase, a buyer should be able to answer several questions:
- What exactly is my basis for protection under the injunction? Are you a current member of a protected associational plaintiff, a qualifying customer in a protected commercial transaction, or otherwise specifically covered?
- Is the FFL also comfortable that the injunction protects its role in the transaction? Your protection does not necessarily answer the dealer’s legal exposure.
- Where did the suppressor originate? If you are relying on a commercial-plaintiff/customer theory, the seller and distribution chain may matter.
- Does your state impose any separate requirement? A federal injunction against ATF does not erase an independent state restriction.
- Who is legally acquiring the suppressor? If the purchaser is a trust, corporation or LLC rather than the individual member, do not assume the protection automatically carries over.
- Do you have documentation? Keep proof of membership if membership is your basis, the purchase records, the suppressor’s identifying information and a copy of the court’s final judgment.
- Have you spoken with competent firearms counsel? If you are going to rely on a party-specific federal injunction involving potential felony exposure, getting legal advice before the transaction is the prudent move.
Texas Gun Rights is not telling every Texan to walk into any gun shop and demand a suppressor without a Form 4. We are telling gun owners to understand exactly why they believe their transaction is protected before relying on the injunction.
FFLs Should Be Even More Careful
The ruling puts many Federal Firearms Licensees in an unusual position. The court has prohibited ATF from enforcing specified NFA provisions against protected parties. But it did not publish a comprehensive operations manual explaining how every dealer, manufacturer, distributor and customer should restructure their records and procedures overnight.
And the order does not wipe away the Gun Control Act. That matters because a suppressor is still legally classified as a “firearm” under the Gun Control Act. So ordinary federal dealer requirements still matter.
For qualifying commercial suppressor transfers, Form 4473 and applicable NICS requirements remain in place, along with the FFL’s ordinary federal recordkeeping obligations.
The separate NFA special occupational tax for importers, manufacturers and dealers also remains on the books and wasn’t part of the constitutional relief granted by Judge Hendrix. That means an FFL considering no-Form-4 transfers should independently determine:
- why the dealer itself is protected
- why the purchaser is protected
- why the particular product and transaction are protected
- which federal Gun Control Act requirements remain
- which state requirements remain
- what documentation should be maintained to establish the dealer’s basis for relying on the injunction
A customer’s GOA membership card shouldn’t automatically be treated as a magic piece of paper that resolves every question for an otherwise unrelated dealer.
Silencer Shop’s own current guidance makes a similar distinction. Its program says qualifying Silencer Shop suppressor and AOW transactions can proceed without a Form 4 in states where state law allows it, while parties attempting to rely on organizational membership are advised to determine how the membership protection applies to both buyer and dealer.
Some FFLs may therefore decline to participate until their attorneys, compliance professionals or business partners are satisfied with the procedure. That doesn’t necessarily mean they oppose the ruling.
It means the legal landscape changed dramatically in a matter of days, and an FFL operating under federal licensing and inspection requirements may want a documented legal basis before becoming a test case.
Texas Gun Rights’ Recommendation
If you intend to attempt a purchase under the Hendrix injunction, Texas Gun Rights recommends taking the cautious route:
Become an actual member of an applicable plaintiff organization like GOA if you intend to rely on the membership protection.
Make sure the dealer understands why it believes it is protected, too.
Make sure the particular suppressor and transaction fall within the legal theory being relied upon.
Keep documentation supporting that position.
And most importantly:
Talk to a competent firearms attorney before completing the transaction.
If you want ongoing access to our preferred Texas firearms attorneys, Texas Gun Rights supporters can sign up with Armed Attorneys and use code TXGR for 75% off the first month of your subscription.
A federal injunction is powerful protection. But when the potential alternative is becoming the person ATF chooses to argue is outside that injunction, this isn’t the time to make assumptions.
What About Short-Barreled Rifles and Short-Barreled Shotguns?
This is another area where gun owners need to be careful. SBRs and SBSs were part of the underlying constitutional victory because Congress also reduced their NFA making and transfer taxes to zero. But dealer transfers face a separate federal obstacle outside the provisions Judge Hendrix enjoined.
The Gun Control Act—18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4) prohibits an FFL from selling or delivering a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun to an individual unless specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity. That requirement wasn’t erased by the Hendrix injunction.
Silencer Shop’s current August 13 guidance therefore says SBR and SBS transfers still require a Form 4 in the states where they are lawful because the Form 4 is currently the mechanism being used to obtain that separate GCA authorization.
So do not look at what Herrera and Virdell did with suppressors and assume you can automatically do the same thing with an SBR. The legal issue is different.
What About AOWs?
Any Other Weapons were also among the categories for which Congress eliminated the NFA making and transfer tax. The Silencer Shop plaintiffs challenged the continuing registration system for those firearms as well.
Silencer Shop currently says qualifying AOWs in its program are being treated the same way as qualifying suppressors in states where state law allows those transactions without continued NFA registration. There is an important wrinkle, however.
The final judgment states that the injunction does not extend to AOW regulation as it relates to the Jensen plaintiffs. Again, the precise plaintiff or customer theory matters.
Machine Guns and Destructive Devices Are NOT Covered
Machine guns and destructive devices are outside the core constitutional holding because Congress didn’t eliminate their NFA making and transfer taxes. The court’s ruling therefore does not eliminate their NFA requirements. Machine guns are also subject to additional federal restrictions outside the portions of the NFA at issue here.
Why Are Suppressors Still Treated Like Firearms?
Even after the NFA victory, suppressors remain trapped under another federal gun-control law. The Gun Control Act separately defines a firearm to include a firearm muffler or firearm silencer.
That’s why a qualifying suppressor transaction can escape the enjoined NFA Form 4 and registration requirements while still requiring the buyer to complete a Form 4473 and satisfy the ordinary federal dealer transfer requirements.
Texas Gun Rights believes Congress should eliminate that requirement too. A suppressor doesn’t fire a projectile. It’s a device designed to reduce the sound produced by a firearm. There is no legitimate reason a law-abiding American should need federal firearms paperwork simply because Washington decided to legally classify that device as a firearm.
The Hendrix ruling attacks the NFA layer. Congress still needs to eliminate the GCA layer.
H.R. 850, the Silencers Help Us Save Hearing Act, or SHUSH Act, is one proposal that would remove silencers from the Gun Control Act’s federal firearm definition and treat them as firearm accessories.
What Happens Next?
The Hendrix decision is a massive victory, but the legal story isn’t finished. First, the court’s seven-day stay is over. Judge Hendrix entered his judgment on August 5 and stayed its effect for seven days specifically so the federal government could seek appellate relief. That period expired without DOJ obtaining a new stay. That’s why the injunction is operative now.
But the expiration of that seven-day stay is not technically the same thing as the expiration of DOJ’s ordinary deadline to file a notice of appeal. Because the United States and federal agencies are parties, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4 generally provides a 60-day civil appeal window.
As of August 13, that ordinary period hasn’t expired. So gun owners should distinguish between two facts: The injunction is currently in effect and…the normal appellate filing period isn’t yet over.
There is also a larger strategic question. Because Judge Hendrix declined to issue a universal injunction, DOJ and ATF are now facing the prospect of enforcing the same NFA provisions against some Americans while being prohibited from enforcing them against other Americans engaging in essentially identical conduct.
Nearly 50 members of Congress have already urged DOJ to decline an appeal, adopt the court’s constitutional position nationwide and begin rulemaking to remove the challenged regulations.
Other challenges can also continue working their way through federal courts. Judge Hendrix specifically noted similar litigation including Brown v. ATF in Missouri and Roberts v. ATF in Kentucky. That matters because his District Court ruling, important as it is, doesn’t create binding Fifth Circuit precedent for every gun owner in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.
If DOJ ultimately declines to appeal (letting the 60-day window expire), the injunction survives—but there is no Fifth Circuit decision transforming Judge Hendrix’s reasoning into controlling appellate precedent across the circuit.
The Only Permanent Solution Is Repeal
This case shows both how much progress gun owners have made—and why Texas Gun Rights refuses to settle for half-measures.
A court injunction can be limited to particular plaintiffs. An executive-branch enforcement policy can change with the next administration. An ATF regulation can be rewritten.
The statutes themselves remain until Congress removes them. That is why Texas Gun Rights continues demanding that Congress abolish the ATF and repeal the National Firearms Act.
H.R. 221, the Abolish the ATF Act, would eliminate the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
H.R. 335, the Repeal the NFA Act, would repeal Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code—the National Firearms Act itself.
And Congress must also finish eliminating the separate Gun Control Act provisions that continue treating suppressors and other constitutionally protected arms as federally restricted items.
Texas Gun Rights doesn’t want a faster federal gun registry. We do not want a cheaper permission slip. And we don’t believe a hearing-protection device should require federal firearms paperwork simply because Washington decided to call it a “firearm.”
We want the unconstitutional system gone.
Yes a win. That requires a lawyer to actually determine if you and your ffl are good to go.
So rights for some but not for all.
I get it, this judge could only legally make a ruling based on who the plaintiffs are. So why do other judges submit blanket stays/injunctions that must be followed everywhere (even when the USSC says they cant).
If something is unconstitutional for some, then it must be unconstitutional for all.
What I think is a larger issue is that the decision also declared the unconstitutionality of requiring a tax stamp on Form 1’d cans / SBRs / SBSs / AOWs.
Thus, while the GCA prohibits an *FFL* from delivering an SBR / SBS / AOW that is unregistered, that doesn’t apply to an individual covered by the injunction who makes it himself (assuming, of course, that they are in a state where they are not only legal but also that the legal possession isn’t tied to NFA registration).
It would thus appear that a covered individual (i.e., GOA member) in a proper state could legally assemble an SBR or chop a shotgun without Form 1’ing it. And also expect to see inexpensive parts kits that will make it easy to assemble your own suppressors (probably out of aluminum parts — those will be consumable suppressors with limited lifespans but will be so cheap that it won’t matter).
Such “roll your own” weapons will be completely off the grid — no records of them at all, which could be important if there is a subsequent change in the law.
“It would thus appear that a covered individual (i.e., GOA member) in a proper state could legally assemble an SBR or chop a shotgun without Form 1’ing it. And also expect to see inexpensive parts kits that will make it easy to assemble your own suppressors (probably out of aluminum parts — those will be consumable suppressors with limited lifespans but will be so cheap that it won’t matter).”
What about a GOA member *not* in one of the 15 mentioned states, like where I am, in Florida? NFA items in general are legal here, provided they are on the NFA registry.
Am I able to simply ‘roll my own’ SBR, SBS, and AOW, and suppressor with no hassles???
“And also expect to see inexpensive parts kits that will make it easy to assemble your own suppressors (probably out of aluminum parts — those will be consumable suppressors with limited lifespans but will be so cheap that it won’t matter).”
That’s the real biggie, those 25-dollar Chinese ‘Solvent Traps’ are already all over the place on the Asian internet sites. I’ve got the drill press, 3/8 drill bit, and a 3/8 X 24 TPI tap in the tool box.
Jeremy S (who may, or may not have, spoken in class today) did an article on the old site or this one on a Form 1 suppressor build, with all the details.
That’s really going to ‘Make backyard .22lr plinking Great Again’.
This victory is a direct result of Trump being elected twice, as he appointed Judge Hendrix to that 5th circuit Federal court, and got the ‘Great Big Beautiful Bill’ rammed through the Congress, killing the tax on a cloture vote, with zero Leftist Scum ™ support…
LKB, as I understand it, the 5th circuit decision applies only to *current* members of the listed rights organizations, not to *past* members.
Won’t this require members to continually maintain their paid memberships to remain immune to prosecution???
If so, that’s a GREAT way to drive lifetime memberships, and might be a message to be broadcast far and wide…
America is becoming great again. Assuming the republicans keep control of both houses of congress. And that is our responsibility as a so called lover of freedom. Because freedom is not free. It doesn’t just appear at your door. If you don’t vote then you won’t get freedom.
But you will get “free stuff”. Like “free” medical marijuana, “to solve” all your problems. Many want that more than they want their 2A civil rights.
Some states are handing out “free” crystal meth.
The “Right” has been winning thru incrementalism. And at an increasing speed, because of the Trump administration.
And yes I know several states have outlawed suppressors. Like California. Unless you work in the movie business. And the majority of california voters don’t believe in liberty. They are comfortable slaves with their “free” weed.
Back in the day. The black slaves had to move to a free state. And the “white slsves” are going to have to move to a free state too. Yes that correct I said it.
President Reagan said “50 states, and 50 different ways of doing things”.
No it’s not perfect. And nothing ever is.
I don’t know about short barrel rifles. But I think the Trump administration will have the suppressor issue deregulated before the next election.
“America is becoming great again. Assuming the republicans keep control of both houses of congress.”
That’s gonna be a whole lot easier once the 2030 Census pushes around 14 House seats away from Blue states and into solid Red states. Them losing 14 seats and we gaining 14 means we get handed a 28 advantage House seats without having to do a damn thing, except relocate. Voting with your feet works, people, and has real results…
Yup. This is what happens when you can leave a communist state. And it’s interesting to watch the democrats again, claim an election was stolen from them!! In Wisconsin. 🤣
Federal Judge Deals Final Death Blow to ATF’s ‘Engaged in the Business’ Rule.
“A federal district court judge dealt a death blow to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ remaining efforts to salvage parts of its controversial ‘engaged in the business’ (EIB) rule. On August 13, 2026, U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas denied the Department of Justice’s motion to alter or amend his earlier final judgment, holding that the entire 2024 Final Rule remains vacated.
…”
ht* tps://www.ammoland.com/2026/08/federal-judge-deals-death-blow-atfs-engaged-business-rule/
Ohio’s Unfinished Suppressor Reform Leaves a State-Law Trap for Gun Owners.
“For years, Second Amendment advocates have pointed to an incongruity in Ohio law: a firearm suppressor is classified as ‘dangerous ordnance.’ Ohio Revised Code § 2923.11(K)(5) expressly includes ‘[a]ny firearm muffler or suppressor’ in that definition. The same definition that separately includes explosives, grenades, mines, rocket launchers, and other military-type weapons. A suppressor is not itself statutorily classified as an explosive, but Ohio’s dangerous-ordnance framework nonetheless places it in a legal category far removed from an ordinary firearm accessory.
That classification has serious consequences. Under R.C. 2923.17(A), a person generally may not knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use dangerous ordnance. A violation is a felony of the fifth degree. R.C. 2923.17(D).
For ordinary civilian suppressor owners, the principal statutory protection is found in R.C. 2923.17(C)(5): the exemption for owners of dangerous ordnance registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record under 26 U.S.C. § 5841. Ohio also provides a separate, limited hunting-related provision through R.C. 2923.17(C)(8) and R.C. 1533.04. But for the ordinary owner outside those narrow circumstances, Ohio law ties lawful possession to federal NFA registration.
…”
ht* tps://www.ammoland.com/2026/08/ohio-suppressor-law-sb-214-nfa-registration-trap/
The 27 states with no state-level NFA compliance requirement:
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Mexico
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
West Virginia
Wyoming
The 15 states that still require the Form 4 under state law:
Alaska
Colorado
Connecticut
Georgia
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nevada
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Washington
Wisconsin
The eight states where suppressors are banned outright under state law:
California
Delaware
Hawaii
Illinois
Massachusetts
New Jersey
New York
Rhode Island
What it comes down to:
1. For suppressors; Contrary to some social media postings, the NFA injunction is not just for the states covered by the 5th circuit – it applies only for the federal NFA law nationwide for all members of the organizations and all customers of the commercial entities, present and future, and the individuals named in the case no matter the state (but you are still bound by state law). Although there were states that joined the case and are included in the injunction this does not mean all people in those states are also included, only those that are members of the organizations and all customers of the commercial entities, present and future, and the individuals named in the case, are covered in those states that joined the case. The injunction does not affect states laws, you must still comply with those even if included under the injunction..
2. If a state requires a form 4 in its law for suppressors; It does not matter if people are members of the organizations or customers of the commercial entities, present and future, or the individuals named in the case – a form 4 and registration is still required to comply with state law. (there are 15 states, see above list)
3. If a state does not require a form 4 in its law for suppressors; If people are members of the organizations or customers of the commercial entities, present and future, or the individuals named in the case – a form 4 and registration IS NOT REQUIRED. (there are 27 states, see above list)
4. If a state bans suppressors; It does not matter if people are members of the organizations or customers of the commercial entities, present and future, or the individuals named in the case – purchase and/or possession of a suppressor is prohibited under state law. (there are eight states, see above list)
5. Under federal law, due to the injunction, a form 4 is not required for members of the organizations or customers of the commercial entities, present and future, or the individuals named in the case. However, this does not mean you can ignore state law as the injunction does not affect state law so consult state law (see list above). Additionally, all others not covered by the injunction require a form 4 even if in a state where no form 4 is required.
6. For SBR, SBS, AOW, a form 4 is still required [federally] for GCA purposes no matter if members of the organizations or customers of the commercial entities, present and future, or the individuals named in the case or the state does not require it. Some states may also required the form 4 for SBR, SBS, AOW. The injunction does not affect the GCA, it is only for the NFA.
7. The injunction essentially created a federal two-tiered system, for some people its legal without a form 4 and for others its illegal without a form 4. In other words, basically, the federal law for suppressors is now selective and biased because it only apples to some and not all which is illegal and unconstitutional.
8. FFL’s are businesses. They make business decisions. Most are waiting on further guidance from the ATF before they will transfer anything NFA’ish. This is only wise a prudent, it is a correct thing to do business wise – so, for example, do not march into one of these FFL’s stores demanding a suppressor be transferred to you without a form 4 and touting your membership in one of the organizations covered by the injunction or that its a suppressor from one of the commercial entities covered under the injunction. For states where a form 4 is required under state law, you should not see a change for suppressors because for those FFL’s it will be business as it was before the injunction even if you are members of the organizations or (buying suppressors made by and from, thus a customer of,) of the commercial entities, present and future, or the individuals named in the case – it will be that way because the state still requires the form 4 to have been submitted to ATF and approved.
To add:
9. Also see the post from LKB farther back up in the comments.
Also @LKB, if I got something wrong in my above posts please let me know.
(The following is not legal advice. I’m a lawyer, but I’m not YOUR lawyer.)
I think #6 is slightly inaccurate.
For SBR’s, SBS’s, and AOW’s, a Form 4 is still required for their sale or transfer *by an FFL.* And the transport of them across state lines still requires the Form 5320.20 permission slip. (ATF is required to issue them pretty much on demand as long as the proposed transport doesn’t violate state law — e.g., you can’t get a 5320.20 slip to take your SBR to California, because state law bans them.) It’s unclear to me whether ATF’s power / duty to issue Form 5320.20 permission slips is limited to registered stuff, but ATF might be able to implement a regulation where they will issue Form 5320.20 approvals regardless of whether the weapon is registered or not. (Obviously, however, that would mean ATF would then have a record of your home rolled stuff.)
But if you are a covered individual (e.g., a card carrying GOA member), as I read the decision and the law, you should be able to roll your own cans, SBR’s, SBS’s, and AOW’s without having to Form 1 them. Of course, if you are doing a lot of them or are regularly selling / transferring them, you are at great risk of getting nailed for being in the business of making them without having an SOT ticket, and that’s serious heat. And as noted above, except for cans, taking any NFA weapon across state lines without the required permission slip is a big no-no.
Also, rolling your own without Form 1’ing it is, of course, not allowed in states that prohibit those weapons or that tie their legality to NFA registration.
All of us, however, should hold our water until we get some definitive guidance from ATF / DOJ / courts before breaking out the hacksaws, ordering that upper with a 12” barrel from PSA to put on your AR-rifle, or slapping a proper stock on your AR pistols. It’ll come soon enough.
“But if you are a covered individual (e.g., a card carrying GOA member), as I read the decision and the law, you should be able to roll your own cans, SBR’s, SBS’s, and AOW’s without having to Form 1 them.”
That answers the question I asked above, thanks.
But how does one notify the ATF of an SBR crossing state lines if it isn’t registered on the NFA rolls? Notify them my Anderson lower serial number with an 8-inch upper is crossing state lines?
We really need to clean that up, and without 60 seats in the Senate, we’re likely screwed…
Geoff, you still need to submit Form 5320.20. List the states you’re likely to visit, and ask for a one year approval. They’ll approve it as long as it’s legal in those particular states.
To add, clarification:
10. A state’s participation as a plaintiff in the NFA lawsuit (what the injunction covers for these states) concerns the federal government’s enforcement against that state’s own agencies. It does not change that state’s own law as applied to its residents. Some of those states that were plaintiffs in the lawsuit have laws that still require NFA registration to own a suppressor or SBR.
Justice Department Says You Can Carry for Self-Defense in a Post Office, and the Postal Service Ban Cannot Be Enforced
“Key Takeaways
The Justice Department’s opinion states that carrying a firearm into a post office for self-defense is permissible under certain conditions.
Federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 930, prohibits firearms in federal facilities but has exceptions for lawful carrying purposes.
The opinion suggests that self-defense qualifies as a lawful purpose, countering previous narrow interpretations of the law.
The Postal Service’s regulation against firearms lacks an exception for self-defense, making it potentially unenforceable for law-abiding citizens.
This opinion is an internal legal interpretation and not a court ruling, meaning it does not bind the judiciary.
…”
ht* tps://www.usacarry.com/justice-department-says-you-can-carry-for-self-defense-in-a-post-office-and-the-postal-service-ban-cannot-be-enforced/
Seven Years in Prison for Selling a Factory Stock Glock: SAF, NRA and FPC Sue New York Over Its Glock-Style Handgun Ban.
“Key Takeaways
The Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging a New York law banning the sale of Glock and Glock-style handguns.
The law criminalizes the sale or transfer of pistols deemed ‘convertible’ into machineguns, carrying severe penalties.
SAF argues this law targets lawful sellers rather than actual criminals and highlights issues with the definition of ‘convertible pistol.’
The case gained support from the NRA and other firearms groups, addressing the cruciform trigger bar controversy.
New York has not yet responded to the lawsuit, and updates will follow as the case progresses in court.
…”
ht* tps://www.usacarry.com/seven-years-in-prison-for-selling-a-factory-stock-glock-saf-nra-and-fpc-sue-new-york-over-its-glock-style-handgun-ban/
NFA UPDATE: Can You Replace Your Brace Now
“Here is an update based on the most frequently asked questions I have received.”
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCsax06-Y64
NFA Update – SBRs & SBSs | Palmetto State Armory (AKA ‘PSA’). [note: PSA was also a party covered by the NFA injunction)
“PSA Customers: What the SBR Ruling Means for You
If you have a qualifying firearm from Palmetto State Armory, this is a video you need to watch before making any configuration changes.
We break down who qualifies for the process addressed by the ruling, what it means for qualifying AR pistols and complete rifles, and the major eligibility requirements customers need to understand:
1. The firearm itself must be a qualifying firearm from Palmetto State Armory.
2. You must be a current Gun Owners of America member.
3. State and local law must allow the configuration.
Individual components alone do not make an otherwise unrelated firearm eligible.
For qualifying customers and firearms, the challenged federal Form 1 process described in the video no longer applies to the covered configuration.
We also want to recognize Gun Owners of America and the organizations that continue putting in the work, filing the lawsuits, and fighting for your rights.
Federal law is only part of the equation. State and local laws still apply, including any registration requirements, restrictions, or prohibitions. This video is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.
Serial number and marking requirements were not enjoined. The maker identification requirement at 26 U.S.C. § 5842(a) and 27 C.F.R. § 479.102 was not enjoined as to anyone.
A state’s participation as a plaintiff in the lawsuit concerns the federal government’s enforcement against that state’s own agencies. It does not change that state’s own law as applied to its residents. Some of those states that were plaintiffs in the lawsuit have laws that still require NFA registration to own a suppressor or SBR.
If you have any question at all about whether this applies to you, consult a qualified attorney who can advise you on your situation before you change the configuration of your firearm.
There are also still many open questions, including questions regarding marking requirements, transportation across state lines, and transfers to others. Know and understand all applicable laws BEFORE reconfiguring your firearm.”
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfSzfoo4hg0
NEW UPDATE: Felonies for Self-Defense Against Town Official.
Update in the case of the man hit with multiple felonies for self-defense.
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL8jKjUrhe8
Left winger woman are like a herpes virus infection, never go away and always lurking but ready to appear – Kamala Harris & Stacey Abrams spout more lies and disinformation: Don’t Walk, Run! Productions – She Actually Said This Out Loud… 🤣
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb2-ctNIX_s
Finally! A way to get rid of trans – tell more jokes about them: left winger comedian seriously warns trans will literally die if you tell jokes about them.
”
…
Comedian Margaret Cho: ‘When you take trans lives lightly in a comedy routine, trans people die.’
…”
ht* tps://townhall.com/news/amy-curtis/2026/08/14/margaret-cho-trans-people-die-if-you-joke-about-them-n2681235
Yep, the Biden tyranny was actually out to get you for being a christian: [Biden] FBI Secret Christian Watchlist Exposed — 4 Things to Know
ht* tps://townhall.com/columnists/jordan-sekulow/2026/08/14/fbis-secret-christian-watchlist-exposed-4-things-to-know-n2681296
Landmark Suppressor Ruling Leaves Gun World With More Questions Than Answers.
”
…
The words of caution come from a place of universal uncertainty. The burden to provide clarity about the ruling, Cleckner and Johnston both agree, rests on the federal government. But because the ATF and DOJ did not try to extend the seven-day stay on the injunction and have yet to file an appeal in the case, both of which would have given the public insight on the government’s train of thought, Americans who want to buy and sell suppressors without the obligations outlined in the NFA are in limbo and questions abound.
‘Procedurally, the way things went down leaves us in a bit of a purgatory,’ Cleckner said.
While the decision suggests the injunction protects plaintiffs, it does not explain whether it applies to NFA firearms that are already in circulation or new, either in manufacture or sale. The opinion also does not specify whether people making their own suppressors will still need to apply with the previously required ATF Form 5320.1, often shortened to Form 1.
Further complicating this issue is the NFRTR.
‘If this court says [suppressors are] not part of the NFA anymore, then that registry is illegal,’ Cleckner added. ‘How quickly does the ATF have to get those guns off the registry? If it’s already on the registry to me, and I go to sell it to you, and I try and treat it like a regular firearm and no longer NFA, it’s still ‘in my name.’ How do I get it out of my name? And when I got it, I agreed to follow certain rules. Does that mean my agreement no longer applies?’
Nobody seems to know. What is known is that the NFA is not completely dead — especially in states with their own laws that require NFA compliance — meaning that not just anyone is permitted to sell or purchase suppressors.
‘The average consumer out there is completely misunderstanding what happened. They think silencers got deregulated. They did not. [The court] just said that it was inappropriate for Congress to use its taxing authority to regulate them,’ Cleckner interpreted.
…
The ambiguity of the injunction is exactly why Cleckner and the GOA are urging prudence, especially for average Americans hoping to walk out of their local gun store with a suppressor same-day.
‘There’s a federal law right now that says what people are doing is illegal,’ Cleckner added.
Johnston told The Federalist that the GOA believes ‘it’s very important to have this ruling expanded to cover all Americans because the Second Amendment doesn’t only apply to elite classes or special groups.’ But he warned that doesn’t happen unless the ruling is codified through the federal rule making process.
Whether the Trump administration is willing to go to those lengths will be determined over the next couple of months. According to reporting from The Federalist’s Sean Davis, Assistant Attorney General of the DOJ’s Civil Division Brett Shumate is working behind the scenes to secure an appeal that would threaten the injunction.
…
The DOJ has two months from August 5 to appeal the ruling. Even if the administration backs down and decides not to appeal, however, suppressors could still be in jeopardy.
Cleckner noted that a district court in a less gun friendly state like California could easily counter the current injunction. A less imminent, but possibly even bigger threat, he said, comes from congressional Democrats who could use any power they gain in the midterms or future elections to regulate silencers out of existence with outlandish tax stamp fees or ban them altogether.
…”
ht* tps://thefederalist.com/2026/08/14/landmark-suppressor-ruling-leaves-gun-world-with-more-questions-than-answers/