4 companies who transferred suppressors on 4473’s passed atf audits!

[Thumpy]

https://www.rifleconfigurator.com/articles/atf-inspections-4473-suppressors

 

looks like the atf is accepting it! 

[Uncle Zeek]

Looks like it, with the caveat that all four shops were protected members of the plaintiff class.   

[Thumpy]

8 hours ago, Uncle Zeek said:

Looks like it, with the caveat that all four shops were protected members of the plaintiff class.   

That is the point of it? Isn’t it? 

[The Dude]

So now ATF has the names and addresses of those who purchased on just the 4473

[Mark2]

Sounds like the beginning of a Federal Investigation. Copy the books during an inspection and build a case? 

[StrangeRanger]

A field inspection to confirm compliance with a non-existent policy, what could possibly go wrong? 

[Uncle Zeek]

3 hours ago, Thumpy said:

That is the point of it? Isn’t it? 

Yes, it is - sorry, wasn't trying to sound contradictory or such.   Just making observations and being guardedly optimistic

[Nick L]

What was the chance those (4) shops only doing 4473's for NFA had an inspection (which is usually every 3-5 years)in that short amount of time since the ruling...

[MPFiveO]

I just thought I'd drop in and spread some of my Fudd gloom. I hope this doesn't implode. Just because they left the inspections without closing the shops and hauling anyone off in handcuffs doesn't mean everything is all good. They could just be gathering information for when they decide to make a case in the future for transferring NFA items without going through the NFA process.

There is no statute of limitations when it comes to being in possession of an NFA item not registered to you. A 4473 doesn't count and there is no best case scenario. Hopefully these sellers and buyers have friends and family taking care of their dogs. I thought it was a really bad idea to move forward with doing OTC transfers of suppressors without any kind of response or guidance from the ATF.

This is not a case of it being better to ask forgiveness than permission. The ATF has heavily armed goon squads and all the money the government wants to throw at any number of cases they choose to make. They have attorneys and expert witnesses that can convince a jury that you did something wrong when you know you did nothing wrong. That's how this works.

I truly hope that they do give a response within the 60 day window and tell everyone that it's all good and to enjoy more freedom. But, being a Fudd, I'm very skeptical of the old bait and switch modus operandi used by our government.

None of the gun shops in my area are doing OTC transfers of NFA items, nor do I know anyone who has bought one OTC.

[Bill in Bama]

2 hours ago, MPFiveO said:

I just thought I'd drop in and spread some of my Fudd gloom. I hope this doesn't implode. Just because they left the inspections without closing the shops and hauling anyone off in handcuffs doesn't mean everything is all good. They could just be gathering information for when they decide to make a case in the future for transferring NFA items without going through the NFA process.

There is no statute of limitations when it comes to being in possession of an NFA item not registered to you. A 4473 doesn't count and there is no best case scenario. Hopefully these sellers and buyers have friends and family taking care of their dogs. I thought it was a really bad idea to move forward with doing OTC transfers of suppressors without any kind of response or guidance from the ATF.

This is not a case of it being better to ask forgiveness than permission. The ATF has heavily armed goon squads and all the money the government wants to throw at any number of cases they choose to make. They have attorneys and expert witnesses that can convince a jury that you did something wrong when you know you did nothing wrong. That's how this works.

I truly hope that they do give a response within the 60 day window and tell everyone that it's all good and to enjoy more freedom. But, being a Fudd, I'm very skeptical of the old bait and switch modus operandi used by our government.

None of the gun shops in my area are doing OTC transfers of NFA items, nor do I know anyone who has bought one OTC.

 

Yeah, what Pat said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

y

[MontanaRenegade86]

Double Tap

Edited August 26 by MontanaRenegade86

[MontanaRenegade86]

1 minute ago, MontanaRenegade86 said:

Final judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiffs in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, No. 6:25-CV-056, and Jensen v. ATF, 6:26-CV-277, on their enumerated-powers claims. The plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims are dismissed without prejudice as abandoned. Accordingly, the Court permanently enjoins the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the United States Department of Justice, Todd Blanche in his official capacity, Robert Cekada in his official capacity, their divisions, bureaus, agents, officers, commissioners, employees, and anyone acting in concert or participation with them, including their successors in office, from enforcing the challenged provisions of the National Firearms Act as to untaxed firearms against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers—both current and future.  The challenged NFA provisions are:

• 26 U.S.C. § 5812(a)–(b);

• 26 U.S.C. § 5822;

• 26 U.S.C. § 5841(a)–(c), (e);

• 26 U.S.C. § 5861(b)–(f);

• 27 C.F.R. § 479.62(a)–(d); and

• 27 C.F.R. § 479.84(a)–(d).

Further, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the United States Department of Justice, Todd Blanche in his official capacity, Robert Cekada in his official capacity, their divisions, bureaus, agents, officers, commissioners, employees, and anyone acting in concert or participation with them, including their successors in office, are permanently enjoined from enforcing the following additional challenged NFA provisions as to untaxed firearms against the Jensen plaintiffs and, where applicable, their members and customers:

• 26 U.S.C. § 5842(b); and

• 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i). 

Source: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/15027/attachments/original/1785949942/2026.08.05_137_JUDGMENT.pdf?1785949942

It's almost as if the BATFE is complying with a binding court order. 

Edited August 26 by MontanaRenegade86

[johnsonlmg41]

I don't think they are going to issue any statement.  This was a lawsuit with a generally unknown  and unlisted number of affected people.   It will be the buyer and dealer that have to comply with court requirements on their own should they have to do so during an investigation.    Other rulings/ changes affect everyone, this does not, so I think you are on your own as a seller and buyer that have pretty strict limitations and these cans are dead ended with the buyers, most of whom probably have no clue what they just bought into.   As the word gets out, I'd suspect 99% of cans next month will move on forms again, then again if you were dumb enough to stand in line at PSA and spend 700+ on a piece of pipe you can't resell, or use out of state, maybe those guys will keep buying more?  

 

 

[SGT Fish]

17 hours ago, johnsonlmg41 said:

 As the word gets out, I'd suspect 99% of cans next month will move on forms again, then again if you were dumb enough to stand in line at PSA and spend 700+ on a piece of pipe you can't resell, or use out of state, maybe those guys will keep buying more?  

 

 

Cans dont change hands that often  anyways. A bit more since the tax went to $0.

[JoshNC]

On 8/26/2026 at 3:28 PM, MPFiveO said:

I just thought I'd drop in and spread some of my Fudd gloom. I hope this doesn't implode. Just because they left the inspections without closing the shops and hauling anyone off in handcuffs doesn't mean everything is all good. They could just be gathering information for when they decide to make a case in the future for transferring NFA items without going through the NFA process.

There is no statute of limitations when it comes to being in possession of an NFA item not registered to you. A 4473 doesn't count and there is no best case scenario. Hopefully these sellers and buyers have friends and family taking care of their dogs. I thought it was a really bad idea to move forward with doing OTC transfers of suppressors without any kind of response or guidance from the ATF.

This is not a case of it being better to ask forgiveness than permission. The ATF has heavily armed goon squads and all the money the government wants to throw at any number of cases they choose to make. They have attorneys and expert witnesses that can convince a jury that you did something wrong when you know you did nothing wrong. That's how this works.

I truly hope that they do give a response within the 60 day window and tell everyone that it's all good and to enjoy more freedom. But, being a Fudd, I'm very skeptical of the old bait and switch modus operandi used by our government.

None of the gun shops in my area are doing OTC transfers of NFA items, nor do I know anyone who has bought one OTC.

Well said. I most certainly won’t be engaging in any OTC sales or purchases of NFA items until this is well established. 
 

 

[Bill in Bama]

I've had two individuals call me in the past week, both buying cans from Silencer Shop, asking if I will transfer them on a 4473.  I told both no and why.  They are going elsewhere.  I can't get past the part where the suppressors will be in my inventory and a 4473 doesn't remove them.  Not to mention the jail time, fines, possible confiscation of property, etc.  Not worth it to me.  If ATF will ever get around to ruling on this, but their butt must be comfortable on the fence. 

[SGT Fish]

Im kinda glad I dont have to make the decision in ohio yet. I hope our bill goes through to drop them from state restriction. But it makes it easy for me to tell customers why without them being mad at me. 

 

I did stop in a local chain yesterday and watch a guy buy a can. Then the manager came out and asked if he had an eforms account to start the form 4. The customer said "i thought they passed that thing where we dont have to do that anymore?"

This was after he paid. You think the salesman would have explained all that before he sent him to the checkout counter. They sell a decent number of cans too. 

[Tall Pine]

Too bad SBRs weren't covered by the court order.

[MPFiveO]

Does anyone have a Cliff's notes version of who can do it and where it can be done?

From what feedback I'm getting you must be a member of GOA. You must purchase from Silencer Shop. You must reside in one of the states listed in the lawsuit. And, once you possess the suppressor you can't sell it give it away to anyone.

Forgive me, but this doesn't sound like freedom for everyone. It's a start, but again, we haven't heard a response from the agency charged with enforcing the rules. Still no joy in Alabama.

I submitted a E Form 4 with my dealer for a new suppressor on Tuesday and submitted the fingerprints and photographs required. Will wait and see how long it takes but I slept really well that night.

[StrangeRanger]

2 hours ago, MPFiveO said:

Does anyone have a Cliff's notes version of who can do it and where it can be done?

You summed the situation up exactly.  This is a ruling by one judge in one District Court.  The Government thus far has chosen not to appeal so it hasn't been reviewed by an Appellate Court much less by SCOTUS.  Neither has ATF issued a revised rule so unless you meet the criteria you listed it does not affect you.  If ATF does issue a revised rule possession of an unregistered suppressor will still technically be illegal but ATF will be opting to not enforce the law.  Good luck with trusting that to work.

Here in Ohio our legislature is considering a Bill that would make possession of an unregistered suppressor legal under state law.  If it passes it will mean NOTHING because it will still be illegal under Federal law until either Congress changes the NFA or SCOTUS concurs in the lower court's opinion.