Does ATF’s New Stance on NFA Hurt Defense of Future Restrictions?

We’ve burned through a lot of electrons writing about the ATF’s current guidelines on the NFA, particularly regarding short-barreled long guns and suppressors. To be frank, we’re probably not going to stop anytime soon, either. It’s big news and the ramifications are still coming in.

Mark Smith, of Four Boxes Diner on YouTube, makes an interesting claim.

He thinks this will hurt the ATF and gun control far more than we might realize.

The ATF’s nationwide retreat from National Firearms Act registration enforcement has gun owners asking a consequential question: Could a future administration reverse course and target Americans who acquired suppressors or short-barreled firearms without registering them?

Constitutional attorney Mark Smith argues that removing the barriers today could make renewed restrictions harder to defend tomorrow. His reasoning is straightforward: Wider lawful ownership strengthens the Second Amendment case against treating those arms as unusual weapons that government can prohibit.

In a Four Boxes Diner video, Smith explains why he believes the latest NFA victory could develop into lasting constitutional protection for suppressors, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns.

…

Smith connects the NFA developments to the Supreme Court’s pending Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins cases, which concern bans on AR-15-style rifles.

Smith predicts a favorable decision in June 2027 reaffirming protection for commonly owned arms. He believes that reasoning would strengthen challenges to restrictions on short-barreled firearms and suppressors.

He also argues that targeted taxes and registration requirements would face separate constitutional objections. Those are his arguments about future litigation. The Court has not issued the decision he predicts or resolved every restriction he discusses.

Of course the Court hasn’t issued the decision. They haven’t even heard the case yet. That’s coming, of course, and most people on both sides of the fence are making a similar prediction.

That said, let’s focus on the arguments here, and I think Smith makes an interesting point. It could hurt the government’s defense of other restrictions. The federal government just basically said that no, these guns aren’t particularly dangerous, suppressors aren’t inherently dangerous, and so there should be no additional paperwork involved beyond that which is required to buy a gun.

Now that gets to come up in the case of Viramontes because if an SBR version of an AR-15 has been downgraded as a risk by the agency that enforces these laws, how does Illinois or Connecticut get to determine that the long-barreled version is forbidden? What about other restricted weapons? 

Then we get to the next administration who may well try to restore the enforcement of the NFA. Now we get a court fight, and the fact that the ATF downgraded these weapons at all becomes ammunition, particularly if there’s no evidence of them being misused at any rate higher than they were while restricted. I think it’s unlikely they will be, after all.

And, of course, Smith is a lawyer and while I typically drop lawyer jokes anytime I mention attorneys, Smith is one of the good ones, and one I personally like watching, so I won’t be throwing shade because of his profession.

Unless it’s to his face over a drink or two, anyway, while he’s willing to join in.

Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.

Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.