NFA no stamp suppressor transfer happening soon

[Thumpy]

https://www.facebook.com/GunOwners/posts/breakinggoa-silencer-shop-brandon-herrera-and-wes-virdell-have-officially-notifi/1605850387864648/
 

 

[MPFiveO]

Everyone set your alarm clock for 12:01 a.m.

[Uncle Zeek]

Ok, I'm up - this feels sorta like Christmas morning.  Did it happen?  Are non-NFA suppressors and SBRs here now??

 

[SGT Fish]

3 hours ago, Uncle Zeek said:

Ok, I'm up - this feels sorta like Christmas morning.  Did it happen?  Are non-NFA suppressors and SBRs here now??

 

Depending on your state, yes it appears so for suppressors. SBRs and SBSs still need approval from the attorney General so a form 4 is still advised. 

Otherwise its business as usual. Hopefully with less wait time since many wont need to submit form 4s anymore. 

 

But i wonder how form 3s will be processed. Will manufacturers/distributors give dealers the option for a form 3 so that it can then be efiled? Can a dealer in a NFA free state have their suppressor eforms inventory cleared?

[Autogun]

Seems to me if they are no longer part of the NFA then there should be no NFA inventory for those items

[Thumpy]

4 hours ago, Uncle Zeek said:

Ok, I'm up - this feels sorta like Christmas morning.  Did it happen?  Are non-NFA suppressors and SBRs here now??

 

Yes they transferred 2 suppressors with no form other then a 4473!!!! Lot of details still being worked out for everyone else though but today is a new day in this great country! The way we did it for the last 90 years is seeming to be no more!

[SGT Fish]

1 hour ago, Autogun said:

Seems to me if they are no longer part of the NFA then there should be no NFA inventory for those items

Yes. But in many states we still need some sort of transfer for them to be legal at the moment. Like Ohio, until sb214 passes. 

Im sure it will all get ironed out shortly

[Mazak]

16 minutes ago, SGT Fish said:

Yes. But in many states we still need some sort of transfer for them to be legal at the moment. Like Ohio, until sb214 passes. 

Im sure it will all get ironed out shortly

I m an Ohio. What does this mean ? Can I now sale my suppressor to my brother who also lives in Ohio without transferring on a form 4 ?

[SGT Fish]

1 hour ago, Mazak said:

I m an Ohio. What does this mean ? Can I now sale my suppressor to my brother who also lives in Ohio without transferring on a form 4 ?

No. Only if your brother has a permit for dangerous ordnance. 

SB214 is currently in the house of Representatives to remove suppressors from Ohio's dangerous ordnance list. 

[Mazak]

24 minutes ago, SGT Fish said:

No. Only if your brother has a permit for dangerous ordnance. 

SB214 is currently in the house of Representatives to remove suppressors from Ohio's dangerous ordnance list. 

Can I get rid of my pistol braces and put Stocks on them? 

[johnsonlmg41]

9 hours ago, Thumpy said:

Yes they transferred 2 suppressors with no form other then a 4473!!!! Lot of details still being worked out for everyone else though but today is a new day in this great country! The way we did it for the last 90 years is seeming to be no more!

You first!   I can't imagine any dealer in their right mind handing over a suppressor on just a 4473 NICS approval?  

If that is true, for you, yesterday was the last day you could buy a suppressor,  they are then banned in MO without federal registration. LOL   

 

Mazak, sure you can switch out a brace for a stock since there is no such thing as a brace.  If you hold up either stock to your shoulder, you still face prosecution for an unregistered SBR......unless you found one judge to exempt you?  

One judge in a jurisdiction does not change federal laws.....if it were that easy, we would just take up a collection, buy one judge and fix everything.  If the whole zero tax= no tax thing would hold up,  the tax will be raised above zero, ending the whole discussion.  If it goes past 200.....  well then, like bee protecting it's honey, the poked bear is going devour all the honey with minimal annoyance being mostly immune to bee stings.

[Thumpy]

1 hour ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

You first!   I can't imagine any dealer in their right mind handing over a suppressor on just a 4473 NICS approval?  

If that is true, for you, yesterday was the last day you could buy a suppressor,  they are then banned in MO without federal registration. LOL   

 

Mazak, sure you can switch out a brace for a stock since there is no such thing as a brace.  If you hold up either stock to your shoulder, you still face prosecution for an unregistered SBR......unless you found one judge to exempt you?  

One judge in a jurisdiction does not change federal laws.....if it were that easy, we would just take up a collection, buy one judge and fix everything.  If the whole zero tax= no tax thing would hold up,  the tax will be raised above zero, ending the whole discussion.  If it goes past 200.....  well then, like bee protecting it's honey, the poked bear is going devour all the honey with minimal annoyance being mostly immune to bee stings.

Multiple have started today

[SGT Fish]

1 hour ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

You first!   I can't imagine any dealer in their right mind handing over a suppressor on just a 4473 NICS approval?  

If that is true, for you, yesterday was the last day you could buy a suppressor,  they are then banned in MO without federal registration. LOL   

 

Mazak, sure you can switch out a brace for a stock since there is no such thing as a brace.  If you hold up either stock to your shoulder, you still face prosecution for an unregistered SBR......unless you found one judge to exempt you?  

One judge in a jurisdiction does not change federal laws.....if it were that easy, we would just take up a collection, buy one judge and fix everything.  If the whole zero tax= no tax thing would hold up,  the tax will be raised above zero, ending the whole discussion.  If it goes past 200.....  well then, like bee protecting it's honey, the poked bear is going devour all the honey with minimal annoyance being mostly immune to bee stings.

The NFA process is still in place. So they are still legal in places that require registration.  The order wasnt universal, just very wide reaching.

[SGT Fish]

8 hours ago, Mazak said:

Can I get rid of my pistol braces and put Stocks on them? 

Well they are on the dangerous ordnance list and they arent on the bill to amend the list. So what do you think?

[challenger70rt]

2 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

You first!   I can't imagine any dealer in their right mind handing over a suppressor on just a 4473 NICS approval?  

If that is true, for you, yesterday was the last day you could buy a suppressor,  they are then banned in MO without federal registration. LOL   

 

Mazak, sure you can switch out a brace for a stock since there is no such thing as a brace.  If you hold up either stock to your shoulder, you still face prosecution for an unregistered SBR......unless you found one judge to exempt you?  

One judge in a jurisdiction does not change federal laws.....if it were that easy, we would just take up a collection, buy one judge and fix everything.  If the whole zero tax= no tax thing would hold up,  the tax will be raised above zero, ending the whole discussion.  If it goes past 200.....  well then, like bee protecting it's honey, the poked bear is going devour all the honey with minimal annoyance being mostly immune to bee stings.

 Do you ever just look towards the positives with this stuff? Like this is the most historic change to have occurred in this hobby in 92 years! LITERALLY. 92. Years. Is it perfect? No. Could it absolutely change for the worse? Yes… but nothing ventured, nothing gained. The entirety of the NFA is an absolute abomination to the constitution that should’ve never been allowed to stand constitutional muster past v Miller, and VERY LIKELY would not have had Miller not shown up to court because he was dead. 2A supporters have been winning case, after case, after case s/p Bruen, and the REAL turning point is to actually get SO MANY of these items in the hands of everyday people that when the other shoe eventually drops and the other party gets their swing that a registry like the NFA actually becomes pointless. AND for the first time in 40 years you MIGHT actually see an honest to god shot at reopening the mg registry because if a gun registration scheme that has stood for 92 years based on Congress’  power to tax is unconstitutional due to it not generating any tax revenue, then it’s certainly a reasonably analogous argument that purposefully REFUSING to collect that tax on F1 registrations due to Hughes is likely to fail scrutiny under the same litmus test (and this is to say NOTHING of the argument that is has been historically held that the government cannot tax a constitutionally protected right). Like take the win this time, and hope for the best! =D

[johnsonlmg41]

you're just missing a couple little details....

The tax still exists on MG's and other items and the registry is still in place.  None of this had anything to do with that.

The tax is still in place for SBR, SBS, and suppressors with the rate currently set at zero.  Congress never removed those items from the NFA in the final draft of the BBB.   This was done to protect the current rights of people in at least 10 states who now may be losing them.  Not exactly a win for tens of millions of people who will be losing those rights?  Thumpy can shoot himself in the foot as a big supporter of this, but he's going to need ear protection since he'll be banned from buying a new silencer.

While it may appear to be progress, it will be short lived since the basis is one federal judge that can't comprehend tax code or the NFA.  If you made 10K last year and paid zero in federal taxes, it doesn't mean there is no federal income tax and you may still need to file a return even if you owe zero.  After all, it's a free country and I don't work for an employer, why should I pay?

The win was the zero tax rate and it was awesome,  but that's likely to be gone soon to comply with the judge's ruling?   The months since the bill passed will have become a "tax holiday".

 

Well, I have to get out to the shop and run the lathe today and spin up some pipe for my friends.  I'm in a state where private firearms sales with no NICS checks are legal, so I can now make cans with no oversight?  I'll have another guy on the mill making FRT's.   It will be a busy weekend! LOL  Heck maybe we should do some switches?

P.S.  with the registry now on the verge of re-opening, I'm hoping to get $2500 for a Colt thompson?   Cash and carry, anyone interested?  Or is it too much now that anyone can just convert a new Kahr?  Plus those are new, not 100+ years old and used.

[Dean]

I called 5 suppressor dealers here in the free state of Florida and none are going to hand over a suppressor with just a 4473.

[challenger70rt]

2 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

you're just missing a couple little details....

The tax still exists on MG's and other items and the registry is still in place.  None of this had anything to do with that.

The tax is still in place for SBR, SBS, and suppressors with the rate currently set at zero.  Congress never removed those items from the NFA in the final draft of the BBB.   This was done to protect the current rights of people in at least 10 states who now may be losing them.  Not exactly a win for tens of millions of people who will be losing those rights?  Thumpy can shoot himself in the foot as a big supporter of this, but he's going to need ear protection since he'll be banned from buying a new silencer.

While it may appear to be progress, it will be short lived since the basis is one federal judge that can't comprehend tax code or the NFA.  If you made 10K last year and paid zero in federal taxes, it doesn't mean there is no federal income tax and you may still need to file a return even if you owe zero.  After all, it's a free country and I don't work for an employer, why should I pay?

The win was the zero tax rate and it was awesome,  but that's likely to be gone soon to comply with the judge's ruling?   The months since the bill passed will have become a "tax holiday".

 

Well, I have to get out to the shop and run the lathe today and spin up some pipe for my friends.  I'm in a state where private firearms sales with no NICS checks are legal, so I can now make cans with no oversight?  I'll have another guy on the mill making FRT's.   It will be a busy weekend! LOL  Heck maybe we should do some switches?

P.S.  with the registry now on the verge of re-opening, I'm hoping to get $2500 for a Colt thompson?   Cash and carry, anyone interested?  Or is it too much now that anyone can just convert a new Kahr?  Plus those are new, not 100+ years old and used.

I mean.. I’m not “missing” any of that. I agree that we’re REAL early into this, and I will admit that I wouldn’t want to be the test case for FFL/SOT slinging cans over the counter at 12:01am. That said there is one point I would counter and that is your tax analogy. The tax situation isn’t the same as not paying income tax because you have no tax liability from not working. It has to do with the government’s side of the tax structure, not the citizens. Simply put a tax set at $0 for an action ceases to be a tax, because to exist under Congress’ power to tax there has to be an attempt to actually achieve an end goal of collecting revenue. It would be different if there was a differing tax structure to acquire a can or an SBR where some had to pay $5 and others had to pay $0 but that’s not the situation. Also agree that Congress could EASILY institute a $.01 tax on all transfers and this would be moot, but clearly they are not currently interested in doing that at this time. I’m not usually a “4D chess in government” type of guy, but that is exactly what is going on here. Most of the Congress critters are lawyers and they knew exactly what the legal challenge would be to a tax set at $0 and there was a reason the DOJ appears to be standing down from appealing this. And this was put in place precisely to give standing for legal challenges against the NFA. I also understand your take that “one judge’s decision doesn’t change anything” but that’s somewhat disingenuous because it’s NOT one judges decision it’s a series of continuing decisions from Heller, to Bruen, and Raimundo to this most recent one. The legal landscape for challenging unconstitutional gun laws is DRAMATICALLY different today then it was even 5 years ago under Bruen and with the ending of the Chevron Deference standard. For the first time in the entirety of most of our lives your seeing gun rights actually clawed back in the courts to a degree that I think is STAGGERING from a legal perspective, and if I had been asked about this 10 years ago i would not have thought there would even be a remote possibility of it. As far as people “shooting themselves in the foot” with state level prohibitions.. you challenge those too under the 10th and 14th amendments. And that’s precisely what’s beginning to happen. I’m actually in that boat too (maybe our state law is EXTREMELY ambiguous and VERY poorly written to the point that no one is 100% sure if it’s even enforceable), but I currently have 30+ stamps of every type of NFA that already exists, so I’ll be just fine, and if I have to endure some BULLSHIT, so that someday my grandkids can have a shot at a REAL 2A.. that’s a small price to pay. 

Edited August 14 by challenger70rt

[KickStand]

Unless Congress acts, this will be all for nothing.
Maybe we’ll get lucky and they do something, I doubt it. 

[Bill in Bama]

21 hours ago, Dean said:

I called 5 suppressor dealers here in the free state of Florida and none are going to hand over a suppressor with just a 4473.

I've gotten several calls asking if I will do 4473 transfers of suppressors, and I tell them all that I am not going to be the test case and risk prison time and fines that would bankrupt me.  I'm happy the $200 tax went away (for how long is debatable) but e-filing a Form 4 isn't much of an imposition in the greater scheme of things and I"ll keep doing it for now, thank  you very much.

[Got Uzi]

Being in Ohio it has no effect on me, but still, I too have had to field phone calls because people don't know their state laws then get pissed when its explained to them....if its on the internet then it has to be true right??

Here are a few questions I have with all of this "mess" that has now been created by the recent publicity stunt (yes that is exactly how I see it given who it was)

*Interstate travel-so what happens if you buy a suppressor on a 4473 in Texas and come to Ohio?  Is it now locked to only "4473 suppressor states"?

*Transfers-so the manufacture files a form 2 when its made, form 3 to distribution, then a form 3 to the dealer but once it hits the dealer it becomes a 4473 item?  Are these then able to be sold to anyone with a valid drivers license/ccw on the secondary market with no checks at all?  Opening up a whole new level of "private sellers" aka "dealers without an FFL/SOT" at gun shows?

*Was this done to "help" the firearms community or a membership base building exercise by GOA?  I haven't found it yet, so the answer maybe out there on this one, but do you have to be a GOA member for this to work?  I remember you had to be a GOA member to be able to sell at gun shows when ATF was wanting to crack down on the "non dealers" dealing at shows.  The part I thought was funny about that was the ones crying the most were the ones who were literally dealing without an FFL every weekend, no requirements for a 4473, and I'm sure not paying sales tax or income tax on anything either.  

*Will this now mean that all FEDERAL regulations will go away and we will go from ONE set of rules to understand and follow to now possibly having FIFTY different sets of rules to follow?  Personally I think going after a national CCW/CHL system would have been a better use of their time, but GOA is going for headlines and "taking it to the man"

I will say this-even if I were in a state that this was able to be done, I would NOT be doing ANYTHING until there was a official notice on ATF letter head stating what was going to happen and how to proceed.  All the hurt feelings and name calling isn't going to change the fact that as an FFL/SOT, this is my livelihood and I am not going to risk it, nor my freedom just to bend to the "will of the internet" and start going off half cocked when we are in totally uncharted waters here.  I also know its an unpopular opinion to consider, but WHEN, not if, the opposing party gets back in power, all of this is likely to be reversed and either go back to the way it was, or much worse.

[Frank I]

If your in PA you still need an NFA approved Form

Pennsylvania law regarding NFA firearms is clear on some items and ambiguous on others. PA law is fairly clear that machine guns silencers and short barreled shotguns are legal as long as they're registered pursuant to the NFA. In addition, you can hunt with a suppressor in Pennsylvania.

Possession of NFA items:

CHAPTER 9
INCHOATE CRIMES

§ 908. Prohibited offensive weapons.
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits a misdemeanor of the first degree if, except as authorized by law, he makes repairs, sells, or otherwise deals in, uses, or possesses any offensive weapon.
(b) Exceptions.--
(1) It is a defense under this section for the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that he possessed or dealt with the weapon solely as a curio or in a dramatic performance, or that, with the exception of a bomb, grenade or incendiary device, he complied with the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq.), or that he possessed it briefly in consequence of having found it or taken it from an aggressor, or under circumstances similarly negativing any intent or likelihood that the weapon would be used unlawfully.

 

[Tall Pine]

I'd hazard to guess that most states' suppressor/sbr laws are pegged to the old federal NFA construct, just because they probably never foresaw that certain items like SBRs might one day get different treatment from the Feds as do MGs. I guess thats what the congress is trying to resolve and pass now? A law to just make suppressors/SBRs "legal" in all states without NFA registration...and once passed it would negate all these state prohibitions (via the Supremacy clause of the Constitution....i.e. Fed law supercedes state law)?

[StrangeRanger]

2 hours ago, Tall Pine said:

I'd hazard to guess that most states' suppressor/sbr laws are pegged to the old federal NFA construct, just because they probably never foresaw that certain items like SBRs might one day get different treatment from the Feds as do MGs. I guess thats what the congress is trying to resolve and pass now? A law to just make suppressors/SBRs "legal" in all states without NFA registration...and once passed it would negate all these state prohibitions (via the Supremacy clause of the Constitution....i.e. Fed law supercedes state law)?

Congress isn't doing crap on a hot button issue 3 months before an election.  Despite the judge's ruling which, in the unlikely case that it stands, applies only in his district the tax is still in effect but is currently $0.  If Congress had any brains (a doubtful proposition at best) they would resolve the issue simply by raising the current $0 tax to $1 and put the issue to bed

The NFA specifically allows states to impose stricter controls than the feds can. That sets a legal precedent for any future laws or sets up a major 10th Amendment battle in the very unlikely case that Congress tries to change it.  That's why we have a lot of no MG, SBR or suppressor states and others where possession of any of them under state law is permitted ONLY if they are in the Registry..  Taking them out of the Registry would therefore make them illegal in those states resulting in the same issues as "Assault Weapons" currently have. 

Yes it could be changed on a state by state basis but it would take decades and it wouldn't happen in every state.  As always beware of the unintended consequences

Edited August 15 by StrangeRanger
spellling

[Thumpy]

2 hours ago, Tall Pine said:

I'd hazard to guess that most states' suppressor/sbr laws are pegged to the old federal NFA construct, just because they probably never foresaw that certain items like SBRs might one day get different treatment from the Feds as do MGs. I guess thats what the congress is trying to resolve and pass now? A law to just make suppressors/SBRs "legal" in all states without NFA registration...and once passed it would negate all these state prohibitions (via the Supremacy clause of the Constitution....i.e. Fed law supercedes state law)?

Think it’s 27 states with no law’s that will stop you  

[MontanaRenegade86]

On 8/13/2026 at 7:16 PM, johnsonlmg41 said:

One judge in a jurisdiction does not change federal laws.....if it were that easy, we would just take up a collection, buy one judge and fix everything.  If the whole zero tax= no tax thing would hold up,  the tax will be raised above zero, ending the whole discussion.  If it goes past 200.....  well then, like bee protecting it's honey, the poked bear is going devour all the honey with minimal annoyance being mostly immune to bee stings.

Actually, it can in some circumstances. 

As a lowly civilian, I can legally carry a firearm into my local United States Post Office. 

How's that, you say? 

Because when the Firearm Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation sued the Government over Post Office Carry and won, Judge Reed O'Connor issued a ruling that makes the winning plaintiffs in that case (FPC v. Bondi) exempt from the unconstitutional prohibition of carrying a firearm onto USPS property. 

How is this possible when Reed O'Connor is a federal judge in Northern Texas and I'm in Montana? Because he ruled that the plaintiffs in the case included current and future members of the FPC and/or SAF regardless of where they lived. I am a member of both organizations and am thus included as a plaintiff. As such, I can legally carry a firearm into my local USPS. 

The legal logic is the same in the case that Thumpy is referring to. 

There is still a lot of work that needs to be done because this ruling creates a bit of a mess when you consider a patchwork of state laws, other federal laws, and bureaucratic regulations. And ultimately, a court case is a shaky thing that can be over-ruled later on like Roe v. Wade. 

Today though, while this ruling is in effect, as a member of GOA and a plaintiff in this case, I'm going to take my victory lap by celebrating GOA getting one over on the Feds. 

If you take nothing else from this post to heart.....put up some money and join a RKBA organization like GOA, SAF, FPC, NRA, RMGO, etc. As they win cases, you might get unexpected benefits that many others don't get to enjoy.

In Liberty,

K

Edited August 15 by MontanaRenegade86

[Thumpy]

1 hour ago, MontanaRenegade86 said:

Actually, it can in some circumstances. 

As a lowly civilian, I can legally carry a firearm into my local United States Post Office. 

How's that, you say? 

Because when the Firearm Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation sued the Government over Post Office Carry and won, Judge Reed O'Connor issued a ruling that makes the winning plaintiffs in that case (FPC v. Bondi) exempt from the unconstitutional prohibition of carrying a firearm onto USPS property. 

How is this possible when Reed O'Connor is a federal judge in Northern Texas and I'm in Montana? Because he ruled that the plaintiffs in the case included current and future members of the FPC and/or SAF regardless of where they lived. I am a member of both organizations and am thus included as a plaintiff. As such, I can legally carry a firearm into my local USPS. 

The legal logic is the same in the case that Thumpy is referring to. 

There is still a lot of work that needs to be done because this ruling creates a bit of a mess when you consider a patchwork of state laws, other federal laws, and bureaucratic regulations. And ultimately, a court case is a shaky thing that can be over-ruled later on like Roe v. Wade. 

Today though, while this ruling is in effect, as a member of GOA and a plaintiff in this case, I'm going to take my victory lap by celebrating GOA getting one over on the Feds. 

If you take nothing else from this post to heart.....put up some money and join a RKBA organization like GOA, SAF, FPC, NRA, RMGO, etc. As they win cases, you might get unexpected benefits that many others don't get to enjoy.

In Liberty,

K

I always appreciate when you comment always detailed and well written my friend thank you for your contribution to the conversation’s on this board!

[johnsonlmg41]

Actually,  everyone falls into the post office exception, not just SAF members.   The downside, like a lot rules being overturned today, these are not laws, nor are they mostly being overturned or ruled on by the supreme court which would effectively make them mostly permanent.   This specific one is a memo from the the DOJ office of legal counsel and that is their "opinion" and they will not prosecute.....during the current administration.  

While one judge did grant relief to silencer shop and others and the DOJ did not appeal in time, to think this was a stroke of good luck/bad timing is naive at best.  There is more coming and the judge didn't do this on his own, but whether as executive orders or single judge cases, none of it is remotely permanent.    I don't think congress or the current admin is going to let 10+ states lose the ability to buy suppressors due to this judges ruling?   There is a greater plan.....I hope, to morph this into something that benefits actually benefits all of us?   If I'm wrong, this judge just screwed 20+ million people out of their current rights?

Not sure you recall 1/20/21, but in one day things changed most dramatically?   Should things take a turn for the worse, new rules have been being drafted since 1/20/25 and before.  

A quick look at VA is a look into the future.  

I will say, if another couple posts get deleted for no legitimate reason....I'm headed for the door.

 

Edited August 15 by johnsonlmg41

[MPFiveO]

I don't think anyone was screwed out of their rights. The states that have a law that says a suppressor must be registered with the government to be legal is likely to be easily overturned or updated. Yes, it might take some work but so did removing the tax. We're all winning here. If you live in a state that says you can't own something without government permission then it's either time to challenge the law or move to a free state if your freedom is that important to you.

[MontanaRenegade86]

1 hour ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

Actually,  everyone falls into the post office exception, not just SAF members.   The downside, like a lot rules being overturned today, these are not laws, nor are they mostly being overturned or ruled on by the supreme court which would effectively make them mostly permanent.   This specific one is a memo from the the DOJ office of legal counsel and that is their "opinion" and they will not prosecute.....during the current administration.

I remember that DOJ opinion letter and it is not what I was referring to.

Again, as a member of a plaintiff group in FPC v Bondi, I can carry in the Post Office as long as I remain a member of one of the plaintiff groups. It is a binding court decision from a federal judge, not an opinion from a governmental agency. Being a lower court decision, it could be (and probably will be) over-turned or altered at some point. Until then, however, it remains in effect.

Source: https://saf.org/cases/fpc-v-garland/

 

 

[johnsonlmg41]

Everyone can carry into the PO based on this letter from 8/12  https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1457751/dl

Of course it's not real until it's officially on utube.

Edited August 16 by johnsonlmg41

[StrangeRanger]

28 pages!! TLDR

DOJ should learn the concept of "abstract" or "executive summary"

[challenger70rt]

On 8/15/2026 at 5:32 PM, MPFiveO said:

I don't think anyone was screwed out of their rights. The states that have a law that says a suppressor must be registered with the government to be legal is likely to be easily overturned or updated. Yes, it might take some work but so did removing the tax. We're all winning here. If you live in a state that says you can't own something without government permission then it's either time to challenge the law or move to a free state if your freedom is that important to you.

It doesn’t appear to have affected anyone’s ability to own anything in any of these states, bearing in mind that you can still file NFA forms and obtain said items just as before. This decision didn’t end the NFA, it created two classes people.  A plaintiff class and a non-plaintiff class, one of which is exempted from certain provisions of the NFA, and one that is not; but your ability to apply for NFA in the traditional manner is mostly unaffected. My only actual question regarding all this is IF you are in a plaintiff class, and live in a state w NFA state laws, will or can the ATF still process your application? And how would they actually know if you were or were not a plaintiff class?

[MontanaRenegade86]

10 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

Everyone can carry into the PO based on this letter from 8/12  https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1457751/dl

Of course it's not real until it's officially on utube.

A step in the right direction to be sure, although I'd be curious to see if an agency opinion would carry the same legal weight as a court ruling when push came to shove.

You stated: "One judge in a jurisdiction does not change federal laws"

Then how do you explain the Silencer Shop Foundation v ATF case? 

A Federal Court in Texas rules that ATF has to stop enforcing registration requirements against plaintiffs -----> The plaintiffs are Silencer Shop customers -----> Silencer Shop has customers in 42 states -----> 27 of those 42 states do not have state restrictions on suppressors -----> Silencer Shop customers in those 27 states do not have to comply with federal registration requirements on suppressors -----> Residents in 27 states can acquire suppressors with no registration and no wait time. 

Too long, short attention span: Silencer Shop customers in 27 states are no longer subject to suppressor registration. How is that "not a change in federal law" in regard to those specific persons?

Like most of my interactions with certain persons on this forum, I'm probably just whizzing in the wind here and it's going to blow back on my shoes. It appears that some people do not have the intestinal fortitude to admit defeat when they are proven to be wrong.  

Edited August 17 by MontanaRenegade86

[MontanaRenegade86]

52 minutes ago, challenger70rt said:

It doesn’t appear to have affected anyone’s ability to own anything in any of these states, bearing in mind that you can still file NFA forms and obtain said items just as before. This decision didn’t end the NFA, it created two classes people.  A plaintiff class and a non-plaintiff class, one of which is exempted from certain provisions of the NFA, and one that is not; but your ability to apply for NFA in the traditional manner is mostly unaffected. My only actual question regarding all this is IF you are in a plaintiff class, and live in a state w NFA state laws, will or can the ATF still process your application? And how would they actually know if you were or were not a plaintiff class?

+1,000,000 for articulating that so eloquently. 

 

[johnsonlmg41]

14th amendment.  Federal law applies to everyone equally in every state.  States obviously can be more restrictive but unless the federal law is actually changed, there either is a "national" firearms act or not.  If there is not, then the people in the restricted states will lose their rights unless their state laws are changed.   Off the top of my head, it's already failed in MO,  won't happen in WI, CO and several others,  OH maybe?  PA no.  The zero tax was a win for everyone, this will not be.  

Think about it like weed.  Illegal federally, legal in some states.....not really, just not enforced much federally.  The odds of states looking the other way on suppressors is unlikely.  Why they like stoners vs. suppressor owners is a party line distinction in blue states.

Effectively just like the post office case, it's not just the plaintiff's it was a federal rule change that applies to everyone.  You can't have one dude in MT carry at the PO and the dude in Chicago go in naked?  Well, the state and city have made sure they are victim class, but federally they could.  Being federal property it's conceivable you could strap up once on PO property?  Not sure on that one?   We have the same issues crossing the rez....different rules, same states, feds mediate.  

Edited August 17 by johnsonlmg41

[MontanaRenegade86]

54 minutes ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

14th amendment.  Federal law applies to everyone equally in every state.  States obviously can be more restrictive but unless the federal law is actually changed, there either is a "national" firearms act or not.  If there is not, then the people in the restricted states will lose their rights unless their state laws are changed.   Off the top of my head, it's already failed in MO,  won't happen in WI, CO and several others,  OH maybe?  PA no.  The zero tax was a win for everyone, this will not be.  

Think about it like weed.  Illegal federally, legal in some states.....not really, just not enforced much federally.  The odds of states looking the other way on suppressors is unlikely.  Why they like stoners vs. suppressor owners is a party line distinction in blue states.

Generally, yes, but even the Equal Protection Clause allows for some exceptions when there is a valid reason to do so. 

A relatively recent example of such an exception is the US v Skremetti case which ruled that a Tennessee law banning certain medical care did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. 

.....

Going back to suppressors, there is a lot of work for our community to to do going forward. Working on the respective state restrictions is going to be a massive undertaking. Even in the pro-gun state of Montana, I think this is going to be a heavy lift. 

Whether we like it or not, the gauntlet has been thrown.

Edited August 17 by MontanaRenegade86

[MGTedFL]

Personally, I will not transfer or own any currently legislated NFA item without NFA paperwork, despite any judge's ruling. (Unless the Congress acts, changes the law.....and ATF no longer processes transfers) Not gonna' do it. I've worked 40 years collecting this stuff (toys, for fun and entertainment)....and don't want to spend my retirement in jail, over a little paperwork and a $0 tax stamp. 

Others can do as they wish.....that's the great thing about living in a "free" country.  I'm just happy to have to have a few SBR's I didn't have to engrave. I'm an expert on MY opinion, (not, "an expert in my opinion") and that is what I will follow, the safe and conservative path. I don't do "experimental procedures" or "tests" on my patients, and I am not an Attorney, ......and  didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night, so I'm not an expert on the finer points of the law.  FWIW, Dr. Ted

[Chef]

Same here. 

IF I was a member of one of the protected groups and lived in one of the favored states, by the judges order and all the "experts" out there, and therefore I could  buy and own a suppressor without having an approved form 4 or 1, I still wouldn't do it. 
I can't imagine being caught in a situation where I was required to show my registration for a suppressor and then, because I didn't possess such a document, have to "explain" all about the court ruling and why I was exempt from the federal registration process, and carry a file of documents and membership cards to "prove" what I was stating. 
It reminds me of the soverns who carry copies of the constitution with them and try to "explain" to the police why they don't need a drivers license or car registration and plates because they are "travelers" and not transporting goods for commerce, or whatever. 
And we all know the success rate they have, and where they end up. And I'm not sharing a cell with those loonies all because I wanted to "stick it to the man" and make this my hill. 
It's far easier to simply fill out and submit the required forms and get your approved form 4/1 and be totally in the clear than have to go through all that crap trying to explain how the new rules work and how I'm somehow a part of the "protected and exempt" class. 

If the law is changed, it needs to be nationwide, and it needs to be accepted by the ATF and their field agents trained on the new laws. 
Then, after the dust has settled and it's become commonplace, I might consider buying a silencer "over the counter" on a 4473. 
But until then, I'm not looking to be a "test case" on the new rules. 

[MPFiveO]

Chef has pointed out the biggest pitfall to this new development. For the last 92 years law enforcement has been taught to ask for "Your papers please" when encountering items suspected of falling under the NFA. Technically you don't have to show your proof of registration to anyone except a "Treasury Agent" because they're tax documents. Law enforcement operates under the color of law and has qualified immunity from making mistakes like arresting you for failing to prove that your item is actually legally registered. No different than being ticketed for failing to show proof of insurance. That law states you have to show proof.

There's also no consistency in the application of the law regarding possession of NFA items. What I mean by that is there are places you can go with them and no one even looks twice, then there are places where you'll be looking at the muzzles of multiple barrels pointed at you by a SWAT team.

I've found myself in a unique position where I teach with fellow law enforcement instructors and I give them frequent updates on issues exactly like what we're looking at right now. But I'm talking about maybe 30 or so individuals. My goal is for them to pass along the information to their agencies and individual officers so they don't end up arresting someone for having something legal like a pistol brace on an AR believing it's an unregistered SBR, or having an AR equipped with a third position selector believing that the FRT is a machine gun. They don't teach this stuff in the academy and the ATF doesn't really send updates on stuff that has been deemed legal. They will send out updates on items they discover and want law enforcement to be aware of that are illegal.

We have to keep in mind that while most of us here are subject matter experts in these issues, most law enforcement officers are not. Most all of the instructors I train with are "gun guys" and love seeing new toys at the range. But there are millions of other officers out there that don't know much at all about firearms other than they have to qualify once a year with the one they carry and seldom clean. Then there are those that are hoping to make the next big bust of someone smuggling guns to the cartel. Anyone with a few firearms is going to be subject to more scrutiny.

My point is, all of this might be legal now but we don't really know that it is. Congress hasn't changed the law. ATF hasn't made a statement or put anything in writing. All we have is a ruling from a judge in one district. All we have are a bunch of YouTubers giving us their biased opinion. All we have are memes and reddit discussions. None of these will keep you from being arrested when you tell an uninformed officer that you don't need any paperwork for the item they have discovered. The officer isn't going to be in trouble for arresting you. You might be able to prove that the item was legal at the time you were arrested, but it will cost you time in jail and it will cost you money for an attorney that knows what the situation is. A public defender isn't going to know squat about the current situation. In the meantime, you may have lost your job due to incarceration and had to mortgage your house to pay for legal expenses. It's unlikely you'd have much success suing the agency for false arrest because of what was believed at the time.

The internet has been a great resource when it comes to disseminating information. The problem is there's a lot of bad information out there. Don't be so naive to think that everyone is watching this single issue like this small group in this discussion.

Until this has worked it's way through the system I'm going to operate business as usual. If I want a new SBR or suppressor I'll do the same thing I've been doing. All the FFL's in my area are still taking fingerprints and photographs and submitting forms to the ATF. It's the prudent thing to do at this time.

[KickStand]

On 8/18/2026 at 7:28 AM, MPFiveO said:

Chef has pointed out the biggest pitfall to this new development. For the last 92 years law enforcement has been taught to ask for "Your papers please" when encountering items suspected of falling under the NFA. Technically you don't have to show your proof of registration to anyone except a "Treasury Agent" because they're tax documents. Law enforcement operates under the color of law and has qualified immunity from making mistakes like arresting you for failing to prove that your item is actually legally registered. No different than being ticketed for failing to show proof of insurance. That law states you have to show proof.

There's also no consistency in the application of the law regarding possession of NFA items. What I mean by that is there are places you can go with them and no one even looks twice, then there are places where you'll be looking at the muzzles of multiple barrels pointed at you by a SWAT team.

I've found myself in a unique position where I teach with fellow law enforcement instructors and I give them frequent updates on issues exactly like what we're looking at right now. But I'm talking about maybe 30 or so individuals. My goal is for them to pass along the information to their agencies and individual officers so they don't end up arresting someone for having something legal like a pistol brace on an AR believing it's an unregistered SBR, or having an AR equipped with a third position selector believing that the FRT is a machine gun. They don't teach this stuff in the academy and the ATF doesn't really send updates on stuff that has been deemed legal. They will send out updates on items they discover and want law enforcement to be aware of that are illegal.

We have to keep in mind that while most of us here are subject matter experts in these issues, most law enforcement officers are not. Most all of the instructors I train with are "gun guys" and love seeing new toys at the range. But there are millions of other officers out there that don't know much at all about firearms other than they have to qualify once a year with the one they carry and seldom clean. Then there are those that are hoping to make the next big bust of someone smuggling guns to the cartel. Anyone with a few firearms is going to be subject to more scrutiny.

My point is, all of this might be legal now but we don't really know that it is. Congress hasn't changed the law. ATF hasn't made a statement or put anything in writing. All we have is a ruling from a judge in one district. All we have are a bunch of YouTubers giving us their biased opinion. All we have are memes and reddit discussions. None of these will keep you from being arrested when you tell an uninformed officer that you don't need any paperwork for the item they have discovered. The officer isn't going to be in trouble for arresting you. You might be able to prove that the item was legal at the time you were arrested, but it will cost you time in jail and it will cost you money for an attorney that knows what the situation is. A public defender isn't going to know squat about the current situation. In the meantime, you may have lost your job due to incarceration and had to mortgage your house to pay for legal expenses. It's unlikely you'd have much success suing the agency for false arrest because of what was believed at the time.

The internet has been a great resource when it comes to disseminating information. The problem is there's a lot of bad information out there. Don't be so naive to think that everyone is watching this single issue like this small group in this discussion.

Until this has worked it's way through the system I'm going to operate business as usual. If I want a new SBR or suppressor I'll do the same thing I've been doing. All the FFL's in my area are still taking fingerprints and photographs and submitting forms to the ATF. It's the prudent thing to do at this time.

To add to this:

My Captain came to my office yesterday (He doesn’t have any NFA items but knows that I do), he has been wanting to buy his first NFA item and I recently walked him through the process. When he stopped in, he was happy that he could now walk into any gun store and walk out with the can and wouldn’t have to do the “other stuff”. I had to inform him that doesn’t apply to us that way in Florida and it only applies to small pool of people (SilencerShop and so on) in certain states. He mentioned that he’s seen tons of videos of YouTube saying it was legal.
One last thing, he’s been in law enforcement for 38 YEARS and is retiring this December (a lot of gun guys don’t know anything about the NFA or very little). If he was confused and or mislead, I’m sure there’s a lot of other people that will be in the same boat. I reckon that dealers must be getting a ton of calls about getting a can and walking out. 

I think congress really dropped the ball as we had the best chance ever to get rid of large parts of the NFA, with the big beautiful bill. Unfortunately, we got some panty waisted measure (I want the NFA gone). Realistically, when the dems get control (might be sooner than later, thanks to another war) and raise the tax from $0 to Lord knows what. If they’re smart, that’s what they’ll do (hopefully, I’m wrong). That being said, I AM thankful for the GOA and the few others, who continue the good fight for our rights. 

Like I said earlier….

On 8/14/2026 at 1:34 PM, KickStand said:

Unless Congress acts, this will be all for nothing.
Maybe we’ll get lucky and they do something, I doubt it. 

Edited August 19 by KickStand

[Uncle Zeek]

10 hours ago, MGTedFL said:

 I am not an Attorney, ......and  didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night, so I'm not an expert on the finer points of the law.  FWIW, Dr. Ted

 

7 hours ago, Chef said:

But until then, I'm not looking to be a "test case" on the new rules. 

 

You want a good laugh? I am an attorney (mostly tax practice & probate/estate) with my 07/02 and I surely don't want to be a test case either. I just ordered a suppressor from a distributor for one of my guns, and I absolutely will transfer it to my NFA trust with a form 4.

Brandon Herrera is almost certainly deliberately setting himself up for an arrest on this issue so that he can file suit when it does.  I wouldn't want to be the one to put myself through that, but God bless him for having the gumption to do it.

[Frank I]

What happens if you have a suppressor that transferred on a 4473 only, and travel to a state like PA that still requires going through the NFA process?

You are approached by LE,  and they want to see your suppressor paperwork.

  

[Thumpy]

2 hours ago, Frank I said:

What happens if you have a suppressor that transferred on a 4473 only, and travel to a state like PA that still requires going through the NFA process?

You are approached by LE,  and they want to see your suppressor paperwork.

  

Legally you don’t you don’t have to show local LEO your papers. And you don’t need a form 20 to travel with suppressors. So lol don’t put your self in a situation. If you end up there I’m sure FPC and GOA would love to take your case to further their goals as well.

[Thumpy]

2 hours ago, Uncle Zeek said:

 

 

You want a good laugh? I am an attorney (mostly tax practice & probate/estate) with my 07/02 and I surely don't want to be a test case either. I just ordered a suppressor from a distributor for one of my guns, and I absolutely will transfer it to my NFA trust with a form 4.

Brandon Herrera is almost certainly deliberately setting himself up for an arrest on this issue so that he can file suit when it does.  I wouldn't want to be the one to put myself through that, but God bless him for having the gumption to do it.

I’ll be real I suspect they put him on the ffl so if he gets arrested and charged they will be able to argue it didn’t really transfer ownership. That’s just my guess / assumption I don’t know this to be fact though.

[MPFiveO]

2 hours ago, Frank I said:

What happens if you have a suppressor that transferred on a 4473 only, and travel to a state like PA that still requires going through the NFA process?

You are approached by LE,  and they want to see your suppressor paperwork.

  

I'm going to say that the answer is unknown. We all know what could happen in the best and worst case scenario. Best case, they know about the changes in the law and choose discretion and send you on your way. Worst case scenario? Use your imagination up to and including an overnight date with Big Bob.

Kickstand's story about his Captain is not as bad as the one I have. We hired an investigator who retired from a local agency. He had 20 years of service already. One day he comes in with a couple of really nice AR's. I asked him about them and he said that he had just worked a suicide case and the family found these guns in the closet. He told the family they were illegal because they were short barrel rifles. I told him that they were not short barrel rifles but pistols with braces. He looked at me puzzled and asked what a brace was...

I walked him over to a computer and pulled up dozens of online sites selling pistol braces and he was completely shocked. He had no idea there was such a thing even after 20 years in law enforcement. I don't know whatever happened to the guns, I don't know if the family wanted them back, but I told him he needed to return them, if for nothing else, so the family could sell them and help pay for funeral costs. Sad situation.

[inertord]

12 minutes ago, Thumpy said:

Legally you don’t you don’t have to show local LEO your papers. And you don’t need a form 20 to travel with suppressors. So lol don’t put your self in a situation. If you end up there I’m sure FPC and GOA would love to take your case to further their goals as well.

Please quote the law that exempts NFA Owners from showing NFA Registration Documentation to LEO’s? 

[MPFiveO]

17 minutes ago, Thumpy said:

Legally you don’t you don’t have to show local LEO your papers. And you don’t need a form 20 to travel with suppressors. So lol don’t put your self in a situation. If you end up there I’m sure FPC and GOA would love to take your case to further their goals as well.

This has to be the worst advice I've ever seen posted. So, just don't worry about the law and do it anyway hoping that nothing happens that leads to an encounter with law enforcement that leads to an arrest. But, if that does happen then don't worry because FPC and GOA has your back. Right...

As for Brandon and his buddy, I hope that this wasn't an ill conceived publicity stunt. In case you guys don't know, they both hold SOT's and could have easily transferred the suppressors beforehand to cover their butts. This might have all been smoke and mirrors.

Try convincing the local cop with no clue that you don't have to show him your papers and see how that goes. Always works for Sovereign Citizens... Oh, wait...

We are nowhere near out of the woods on this ruling and any changes that might occur. I think many may have been mislead into thinking they're covered where they may not be.

Always remember, the Fed's don't always care if they get a plea or conviction, if they can destroy you financially then they're satisfied. There's plenty of precedence on that.

[MGTedFL]

4 hours ago, Uncle Zeek said:

 

 

You want a good laugh? I am an attorney (mostly tax practice & probate/estate) with my 07/02 and I surely don't want to be a test case either. I just ordered a suppressor from a distributor for one of my guns, and I absolutely will transfer it to my NFA trust with a form 4.

Brandon Herrera is almost certainly deliberately setting himself up for an arrest on this issue so that he can file suit when it does.  I wouldn't want to be the one to put myself through that, but God bless him for having the gumption to do it.

.....would Brandon be arrested if he gets elected to Congress? Certainly more "clicks"......

I'll just wait for this to all settle down, like when I get back home after eating Gas-Station Sushi......it ends quickly and badly.....  

 

[TD.]

Quick question. A Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record, is for the transfer of firearms. When did suppressors become firearms?  

I would hope the ATF or Department of Justice (DOJ) would provide some guidance on this District Court ruling in the near future. It would be better for the Class 3 community if the DOJ would appeal this District Court ruling so an Appellate decision can be rendered on the merits. An Appellate decision is much stronger, especially in the District the opinion is rendered.

You have to ask yourself; do you really want a suppressor in your possession without an approved NFA form of some type? 

[Uncle Zeek]

14 minutes ago, TD. said:

Quick question. A Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record, is for the transfer of firearms. When did suppressors become firearms?  

1934

[MontanaRenegade86]

Mark Smith and Stephen Halbrook did a pretty good job breaking down this case. 

 

[Frank I]

 

On 8/18/2026 at 1:38 PM, inertord said:

Please quote the law that exempts NFA Owners from showing NFA Registration Documentation to LEO’s? 

Forms?  We don't need no forms, we don't have to show you any stinkin forms.

Step out of your vehicle sir, place your hands on the back of your head, and walk backwards to the sound of my voice.

 

 

Edited August 20 by Frank I
up dated

[johnsonlmg41]

The net result of this will be an increase of the tax from the current rate of zero to ?

So you bought a can, you can't leave your state with it, nor can you sell it to someone else other than the dealer you bought it from whose NFRTR books it is still on.

Brandon doing this for PR while currently running for office?   Say it ain't so?   You can bet he filed a form 3 on the can and then 4473'd it to himself.....you don't see that in the video though.

Huge win?    .....and the bear giggles as even democrats vote for the new tax increase on guns and restoring law and order when congress comes back into session next month just in time for their new commercials.   

[Autogun]

Like many FFL dealers we are in Limbo as to what can and cannot be done with the sale of suppressors.

some are selling on just a 4473 and most are holding out from some kind of guidance from ATF.

its been over a week since the ruling that changed everything and we need to know how to proceed.

so come on ATF-NFA you need to make some kind of announcement to the dealers.

[Tall Pine]

On 8/19/2026 at 8:49 AM, johnsonlmg41 said:

The net result of this will be an increase of the tax from the current rate of zero to ?

This is what I'm concerned about. When the Dums regain control in 2 or more years they could easily reinstate that stamp tax, as well as raise it to well over $200 for all NFA items based on a simple majority vote in both houses of Congress. 

Edited August 21 by Tall Pine

[Thumpy]

On 8/18/2026 at 12:38 PM, inertord said:

Please quote the law that exempts NFA Owners from showing NFA Registration Documentation to LEO’s? 

NFA forms are tax info. Tax info is private Show me the law that says I have to show local cops my tax forms upon request? Atf and IRS can request it I’m sure a judge can order it but the local cops have zero reason to look at them.

[Thumpy]

On 8/18/2026 at 12:55 PM, MPFiveO said:

This has to be the worst advice I've ever seen posted. So, just don't worry about the law and do it anyway hoping that nothing happens that leads to an encounter with law enforcement that leads to an arrest. But, if that does happen then don't worry because FPC and GOA has your back. Right...

As for Brandon and his buddy, I hope that this wasn't an ill conceived publicity stunt. In case you guys don't know, they both hold SOT's and could have easily transferred the suppressors beforehand to cover their butts. This might have all been smoke and mirrors.

Try convincing the local cop with no clue that you don't have to show him your papers and see how that goes. Always works for Sovereign Citizens... Oh, wait...

We are nowhere near out of the woods on this ruling and any changes that might occur. I think many may have been mislead into thinking they're covered where they may not be.

Always remember, the Fed's don't always care if they get a plea or conviction, if they can destroy you financially then they're satisfied. There's plenty of precedence on that.

While it may be the worst advice at the end of the day it’s still advice life free bro idk why you old men think some random cop is going to pester you… I honestly doubt any of you boomer’s crying about this are even going to buy a can on a 4473 so just continue doing what you’ve done lol the rest of us will just see what happens.  

[StrangeRanger]

I personally know of two occasions when "some random cop" who didn't know crap about legally owned full-autos confronted a SMG shooter with his gun drawn. In one case showing a Form 4 copy and explaining it defused the situation. In the other it did not but a radio call to his sergeant did.

In either case I would suggest that "I got to show you no stinking papers" would not have been the wisest- or safest - response 

FWIW I have a file envelope with copies of all my F1s and F4s along with a copy of the ATF document exempting my Beretta 1918/30 and my Broomhandle from the NFA. It goes to the range with me any time that any of the firearms concerned do

Edited August 21 by StrangeRanger
@

[Uncle Zeek]

1 hour ago, Thumpy said:

NFA forms are tax info. Tax info is private Show me the law that says I have to show local cops my tax forms upon request? Atf and IRS can request it I’m sure a judge can order it but the local cops have zero reason to look at them.

The law says that you have to make your registration available to any ATF officer upon request. You're correct that there's no law requiring you to provide it to State or local LEO's.   

I keep a copy with me to share with such officers if one should request it, even though the law doesn't require it.   It seems more prudent to me.

 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/section-479.101