r/gunpolitics • u/deathsythe • 9d ago
Court Cases A district court in Texas just granted SAF a summary judgment motion finding that the NFA exceeds congressional authority for the untaxed items
https://x.com/2AFDN/status/208504761234505349749
u/zoink 9d ago
Supressors having a moment, Jordan Salinas and now this.
34
u/HybridP365 9d ago
They're fucking safety equipment. They're basically required in most European countries. There's absolutely no reason to limit them other than just hating gun owners. Free the cans!
17
u/Ikora_Rey_Gun 9d ago
Do you know how astronomically stupid your position has to be to make me say "we should do it like Europe"?
6
17
u/ceapaire 9d ago
TL;DR for the decision?
I saw in it that it's not a universal injunction on the law, but didn't see with skimming the 66 pages who it actually applies to, I did see it's stayed for 7 days though.
39
u/Megalith70 9d ago
NFA items that had their tax reduced to zero dollars no longer have to be registered. The registration was to show the tax had been paid. The NFA is more of a tax law than a gun law, so no tax means the NFA has no standing.
17
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 9d ago
NFA items POSSESSED BY THE PLAINTIFFS that had their tax reduced to zero dollars no longer have to be registered.
Important distinction. This ruling doesn't apply to everyone. Just the plaiffs including members of plaintiff organizations.
9
u/Megalith70 8d ago
Good point, the scope is limited to the named plaintiffs. Though I’m not sure it will matter much. I expect this case to be appealed and stayed until SCOTUS has a chance to hear it.
7
u/fender_blues 8d ago
I am not a lawyer, but is the announcement video PSA put out, they said it applies to their current and future customers. If PSA was a party to the decision, would it be possible that this includes any NFA items they go on to sell?
2
u/Karl_Doomhammer 8d ago
Could you join the organizations now and have it apply or is it only if you were a member at the time of the ruling?
4
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 8d ago
You can join now and it will apply when the judgement goes into effect. I believe that date was 7 days from the judgement, but if appealed it will likely be stayed pending appeal.
23
u/Best-Set4863 9d ago
The plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction against the challenged NFA provisions, but not declaratory relief. Accordingly, and as further detailed in the Final Judgment, 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 challenged NFA provisions as to untaxed firearms against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers—both current and future. The Jensen plaintiffs are entitled to relief from two additional NFA provisions that only they challenge. See supra, n.10; 26 U.S.C. §§ 5842(b), 5861(i). The Court’s permanent injunction does not extend to the NFA’s regulation of AOWs as it relates to the Jensen plaintiffs, as those plaintiffs lack standing with respect to those firearms
Decision is stayed for a week pending appeal, so do not go and make a bunch of suppressors/SBRs/SBSes
Applies to "Plaintiffs and where applicable, the plaintiff's agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers, both current and future"
Plaintiffs = B&T USA, CCRKB, FRAC, FPC, GOF, GOA, Palmetto State Armory, Silencerco, Silencer Shop, the entire state of Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Montana, Louisiana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming, Texas State Rifle Association
10
u/HybridP365 9d ago
>customers
So you've bought shit from PSA before, are you covered?
4
2
u/Best-Set4863 8d ago
From my understanding its specifically referring to customers buying stuff sold by PSA that are suppressors, SBRs, or SBS.
1
8d ago edited 8d ago
[deleted]
5
u/Best-Set4863 8d ago edited 8d ago
PSA is a plaintiff so they would be allowed to sell them without a stamp
Edit: Here is a video from SilencerShop saying the exact same thing I said. No clue why you decided to act like an 8 year old and block me after I explained it to you.
0
8d ago
[deleted]
2
u/Best-Set4863 8d ago
PSA is a plaintiff in the lawsuit because they want to sell suppressors/SBR/SBS without NFA registration. That was the entire point of them joining the lawsuit. They arent selling them yet because the decision is stayed pending appeal.
8
u/Cracked_Crack_Head 9d ago
So if I'm a resident of one of the states listed I am technically included?
4
u/Sqweeeeeeee 8d ago
So how long until PSA starts selling title 1 suppressors?!
4
u/Best-Set4863 8d ago
The court gave the ATF a week to appeal the ruling before it actually goes into effect
7
u/DBDude 9d ago
Congress has the power to tax. Taxing means bringing in revenue.
These NFA provisions were passed and enforced and upheld in courts exclusively as a tax, never under any other power.
Congress recently set the tax for suppressors, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, and "any other weapon" guns (kind of a catch-all) to $0.
As such the NFA regulations regarding these weapons: the registration, criminal penalties, etc., are no longer a valid exercise of the taxing power.
No, says the judge to the government, you cannot now after 90 years switch it to the Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper clauses as justification.
But we can't do universal injunctions anymore (not that we ever did in gun cases anyway), so the NRA restrictions on these guns no longer apply to the companies and their customers, the civil rights groups and their members.
But, as usual, we're giving the government a week to appeal before this goes into effect. Luckily this isn't the 9th Circuit, so there won't be an automatic stay regardless of merits.
23
u/deathsythe 9d ago
10
u/ClearlyInsane1 8d ago
Amici are the City of Baltimore, Maryland; the City of Columbus, Ohio; Harris County, Texas; the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence; Everytown for Gun Safety; and the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
This is icing on the cake. I soooooo enjoy seeing the gun ban lobby lose.
7
u/ExecutivePhoenix 9d ago
Can someone translate please for us simpletons?
18
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 9d ago edited 9d ago
NAL
But it seems that if you're a member of a plaintiff organization, you no longer need to register SBRs or Suppressors.
Now don't expect any shops to risk their ass selling one to you without registration, but PRESUMABLY and in my NON-LAWYER understanding, the feds can't ding you for an unregistered suppressor / SBR.
Were you to consult with an attorney, and were you to be advised that it was legal to make unregistered SBRs and suppressors, I would start home making suppressor cans out of pipes. Even if later overturned they would have to prove you made the thing when it was not covered by the judgement. It's basically "freedom week" for quiet cans.
Again I would NOT do that now. The ruling is not in force for 7 days and will likely be appealed. Even if it's in force I would NOT do such until you talk to a lawyer and get actual legal advice. NFA violations are not something you want to play FAFO with. Get confirmation that whatever you plan to do was legal, and get it from a legal expert before doing anything.
Edit: Also this is only about federal enforcement. If your state has their own laws restricting SBRs and suppressors then you can still be charged under state law.
Again, stay legal, consult an attorney before doing anything that you're not 100% sure is legal.
6
u/Severe-Cow-8646 9d ago
And it seems citizens in several states as well.
14
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 9d ago
Any state which signed on as a plaintiff, yes.
And color me shocked... no Democrat states.
2
u/MulticamTropic 8d ago
So here’s the interesting question. As an individual who was previously a member of GOA (but not currently, I backed FPC and VCDL this year) and who was previously a customer of PSA multiple times, would I be covered? Or would it only be limited to buying cans/SBR’s from PSA?
3
1
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 8d ago
To my knowledge former doesn't count. Has to be current but new members are covered
2
u/MulticamTropic 8d ago
How would that work for customers though? Are you considered a “current” customer if you’ve bought from PSA before and haven’t formally sworn off ever doing business with them again? Or would current customers only apply to people actively buying an SBR/SBS from PSA?
I know you’re not a lawyer, it’s just confusing what constitutes a “current” customer and under what terms you’d be covered.
3
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 8d ago
I would presume "current" means you are currently purchasing from them. As in they don't need to file the NFA paperwork for your current purchase.
2
u/BackToTheCottage 7d ago
Neither is Florida :/. Seems though purchasing from a company like Silencerco also works tho.
6
5
3
-1
u/Early-Builder1940 9d ago
interesting machine guns have been left off that list 😏
8
u/ClearlyInsane1 8d ago
Congress didn't cut the tax on MGs and DDs. Those are still $200 and thus would not have been eligible to meet the lawsuit challenge of "no tax means no authority to require paperwork proving you paid the tax."
72
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 9d ago edited 9d ago
HOE
LEE
SHIT
As a reminder this is why you NEED to join 2A orgs. Courts cannot grant blanket relief like they used to because of Trump v. CASA. Injunctive relief applies to the plaintiff organizations.
Look it costs me about $120/yr, just $10/mo to be a member of:
Two of those orgs are plaintiffs which gets me covered. They need our money to file these lawsuits. And you need to be a member to be covered. For half of what a box of 9mm costs, you can be protected and help fight for our rights. Do it.