FPC Moves to End State-Level NFA Laws

This past weekend, a lot of comments were made regarding how the ATF is basically operating as if the injunction on NFA enforcement applies to everyone and not just those who were part of organizations who won the lawsuit and, more specifically, how it didn’t do a hell of a lot of good for our friends in states like California and New York.

The oppressive regimes there seem to believe that gun rights aren’t rights and that even if the feds say you can have a thing, you still shouldn’t have it.

I thank the Good Lord every day that I don’t live in a state like that. 

A lot of good people do, though, and that’s a shame. 

As much as that sucks, though, there is an issue people like me, who live in states that had been fine with NFA rules right up until the laws started changing. That creates a problem, one I didn’t think about until it came up. Luckily for them, and me, it looks like the Firearm Policy Coalition has decided to fire up its lawsuit printer.

Following the historic end to the NFA’s unconstitutional federal registration scheme for untaxed firearms and suppressors, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that lawyers for the organization sent letters to the attorneys general of 15 states that still tie the legality of silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, or other covered arms to compliance with the federal National Firearms Act registration process. FPC is asking those states to immediately stop enforcement while lawmakers repeal the laws for good.

The effort follows FPC’s major victory in Silencer Shop/Jensen v. ATF, where the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the federal government could no longer use Congress’s taxing power to sustain the NFA’s making, registration, and transfer requirements for firearms Congress made subject to a $0 tax. The court enjoined enforcement of the challenged provisions as to the plaintiffs and others covered by its judgment.

The basic problem was fatal to the government’s regime: Congress eliminated the tax, and with it the constitutional basis the government had relied on for the machinery built to collect that tax.

That should have been the end of it. But in 15 states, it wasn’t. Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin still have laws that tie the legality of some NFA-classified arms to compliance with federal registration requirements.

For people covered by the Silencer Shop/Jensen injunction or otherwise able to act without federal enforcement under ATF’s new policies, those laws can still require compliance with a federal process the court has enjoined, leaving them unable to fully benefit from the federal victory without risking violation of state law.

“The states that require compliance with this unconstitutional and now-defunct federal scheme should immediately end enforcement and repeal their laws as soon as possible,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We certainly hope they will put liberty and their citizens first, and we stand ready and willing to partner with them to protect the rights of their citizens. But no matter what, one way or another, FPC and our Grassroots Army will Fight Forward until people can exercise their rights without fear of arrest or prosecution, full stop.”

FPC’s proposal gives the states a direct path forward: make an immediate commitment to non-enforcement so people are protected now, then work through the legislative process toward full repeal of state laws separately regulating these categories of arms.

This is something I didn’t think about, and something we definitely need clarification at a minimum.

After all, there are a few possible states of being that need to be figured out.

I’d think that those covered under the injunction in Jensen would be covered completely, as they’re complying with federal law as it stands. State-level laws, depending on the wording, should be irrelevant in such a case. [The judge in Jensen has declined to interpret the scope of his injunction that broadly. – Cam]

But for those not part of that injunction, this creates an interesting problem, because the law hasn’t changed. Legally, no matter what the ATF does, the National Firearms Act is still on the books. There’s still technically a requirement to have the weapons registered, even if the ATF isn’t enforcing it. States can enforce their laws, though, and that creates an issue. Especially since the ATF explicitly said this didn’t supersede state law. 

So do the states consider the laws requirements to be met?

Some, like Georgia or Mississippi might. Others, like Connecticut, Washington, Oregon, and Colorado won’t.

Hence the lawsuits. If the courts issue injunctions at the state level, also, then all is well and we can go on about our merry little business of buying so many suppressors and short-barreled long guns that they aren’t just a logistical nightmare to try and re-regulate, but also meet the definition of “in common use.”

I might not like the implications of that term, but I’m more than willing to use it to benefit our side any time I can.

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.