Not to sound R*ddit or anything but could I have a source for this? Why is GA an NFA state? Weren't they named as a plantiff in the GOA's lawsuit? I also don't think Tennessee, New Mexico, or Arizona are in the list. They were not plaintiffs.
The lawsuitwas brought by GOA, Gun Owners Foundation, Silencer Shop Foundation, Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo, B&T USA, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, individual plaintiff Brady Wetz, and a coalition of 15 pro-gun states: Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
Not to sound R*ddit or anything but could I have a source for this? Why is GA an NFA state? Weren't they named as a plantiff in the GOA's lawsuit? I also don't think Tennessee, New Mexico, or Arizona are in the list. They were not plaintiffs.
I got it from the Silencer Shop video. It looks like GA has some laws that make it mandatory to go through the NFA process. It looks like suppressors are on Georgia's "dangerous weapons list". Don't quote me on anything though, I don't know much about Georgia law. https://www.fflscout.com/nfa-laws/GA
I got it from the Silencer Shop video. It looks like GA has some laws that make it mandatory to go through the NFA process. It looks like suppressors are on Georgia's "dangerous weapons list". Don't quote me on anything though, I don't know much about Georgia law. https://www.fflscout.com/nfa-laws/GA View attachment 9406728 View attachment 9406730
The NFA is a federal thing. I imagine that if they were named as plaintiffs, it's likely that they will be off the list. You can see all of the legal documents with regards to the GOA case here:
The NFA is a federal thing. I imagine that if they were named as plaintiffs, it's likely that they will be off the list. You can see all of the legal documents with regards to the GOA case here:
In Georgia, there is a State law that makes it unlawful in the State to possess a silencer unless it complies with federal regulations under the National Firearms Act. There is state penalties that make it illegal to possess a suppressor without it being registered under the NFA. Palmetto video:
In Georgia, there is a State law that makes it unlawful in the State to possess a silencer unless it complies with federal regulations under the National Firearms Act. There is state penalties that make it illegal to possess a suppressor without it being registered under the NFA. Palmetto video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=b5-n7sp0ECwView attachment 9406776
Free state - suppressors are treating like firearms and use a 4473 NO more NFA, SBR/SBS still require a form 4 during purchase BUT if you are converting a current pistol into a sbr/sbs you don't need to do a form 1.
NFA States- CCCCCCCCUCKED because state law requires the NFA process to an extent.
in order to quality at all you need to be a customer or member of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
According to the video: One correction from last week: short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns are covered by the order, but they stillrequire a Form 4 in all 42 states. The GCA is a separate law from the NFA and it still requires Attorney General approval forthose items, and right now the Form 4 is the only form that gets you that approval. We are working with ATF to create a newform for this limited purpose.
SBR's still have to be registered Map of states that are affected in this injunction View attachment 9406599
I am not a lawyer, but the Attorney General approval for short barreled stuff required by the GCA language in 18 USC 992 seems to only cover sales and transfers by dealers. (form 4 shit)
§922. Unlawful acts
...
(a) It shall be unlawful—
(4) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, to transport in interstate or foreign commerce any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity;
...
(b) It shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to sell or deliver—
(4) to any person any destructive device, machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity;
However the judgement quashed much of the National Firearms Act text present in 26 USC Ch. 53 and the accompanying ATF regs concerning manufacture, serialization, possession and transfer.
So shops like PSA would need to work out a new form with the ATF to sell SBRs over the counter without a Form 4 and remain GCA compliant but individuals doing what was "Form 1 stuff" like putting a stock on your existing pistol should be in the clear? Either way I'd advise waiting for someone else to test those waters first.
Hilariously, since AOWs were left untouched, there's a non-zero chance someone will be going to federal prison for putting a vertical foregrip on their gun before swapping out its pistol brace for a real stock.
Goa announces intent to transfer a suppressor to 2 individuals tonight at 12:01 (one notably being B. Herrera ) without Registering it. Which would make it the first legal transfer of a suppressor without registering with the NFA since 1934.
They still have to follow the GCA, which I believe is just the standard background check?
My guess is the ATF will not appeal (IMO they would have already done so) but will lag issuing guidance causing a massive shit storm. (IE, do suppressors still need NFA engravings/Makers marks?)
This ruling creates so many questions, and I've already ordered 20 solvent traps from ping ping so hopefully everything plays out.
Any FFL that isn't interested in playing a game of chicken with the feds is going to wait for the ATF/DOJ to release official crystal clear guidance on suppressor sales.
