FPC Lawyers Ask Alaska and 14 Other States to Stop Enforcing Laws That Hinge Suppressors and SBRs on an Enjoined Federal NFA Process

Estimated reading time: 6 minutes

ANCHORAGE, AK — Lawyers for Firearms Policy Coalition sent a letter dated October 9, 2026, to Alaska Acting Attorney General Cori Mills, asking her office to address state laws that tie the legality of suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” to compliance with a federal National Firearms Act registration process a federal court has enjoined. The letter frames the question in one sentence: “Must state residents still comply with unconstitutional, enjoined federal regulations to exercise their right to keep and bear the arms under state law?”

Alaska is one of 15 states on FPC’s list. In its announcement, FPC said its lawyers sent letters to the attorneys general of Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin, each of which still ties the legality of these arms to the federal NFA registration process, and is asking those states to immediately stop enforcement while lawmakers repeal the laws for good. Last week I covered ATF Stops Requiring NFA Approval and Registration for Suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs Nationwide Effective October 9, 2026. This is the next move. ATF has stepped back from the federal paperwork, and FPC is now going after the state statutes that still point at it.

The letter walks through how the federal side got here. The NFA was passed in 1934 as a tax, with registration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, fingerprints, photographs, local law enforcement notification, and prior ATF approval built on top of it to collect that tax. On July 4, 2025, Congress passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cut the making and transfer tax on suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs to $0 effective January 1, 2026, and left every piece of the registration machinery in place. On August 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, consolidated with Jensen v. ATF, that the challenged provisions, including 26 U.S.C. §§ 5812, 5822, 5841, and 5861, could no longer stand under Congress’s taxing power. As FPC put it, Congress eliminated the tax, and with it the constitutional basis the government had relied on for the machinery built to collect that tax. The court issued a party-specific injunction, meaning it bars ATF and DOJ from enforcing those provisions against untaxed firearms held by the plaintiffs and those covered by the judgment, not everyone in the country.

Per the Second Amendment Foundation, the injunction took effect August 13 after the government let the judge’s deadline pass without seeking to extend the stay, and on October 9 ATF published guidance saying it would cease enforcement that day of NFA provisions as applied to short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and any other weapons. The guidance limits that nonenforcement to firearms on which Congress eliminated the taxes. On the federal side, that is where things stand. State law is a different book.

That is the problem the letter puts in front of Alaska. According to FPC’s lawyers, a number of states wrote statutes that condition the lawful possession or transfer of these arms on compliance with the NFA. A law like that worked as a shortcut for decades: if the federal government approved your tax stamp, the state treated the gun as legal. The letter’s argument is that the shortcut now runs through a process a federal court has enjoined and ATF has said it will not enforce, and the state is left demanding compliance with federal paperwork the federal government itself has set aside. The letter asks for the attorney general’s attention and offers FPC’s partnership in “crafting a prompt resolution.”

I think FPC picked the right pressure point. Attorneys general do not repeal statutes, but they do decide what their offices enforce and what guidance goes to local prosecutors, and an AG who tells the state’s prosecutors to stand down buys gun owners time while a legislature does the permanent work. The letter also notes this is not a one-court fight. Challenges to the NFA are moving in other circuits, including the FPC-backed Brown v. ATF in the Eastern District of Missouri and Roberts v. ATF in the Eastern District of Kentucky, so the pressure on the federal scheme is not going to let up while the states sort out their own codes.

A few things need to stay in frame. This is a letter, not a court order. No state has to answer it, and none of the sources I reviewed show a response from Alaska or any other office. The injunction protects the plaintiffs and, per Gun Owners of America’s FAQ on the ruling, the current and future members and customers covered by the order, with plaintiffs that include Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Silencer Shop Foundation, B&T USA, Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, and Brady Wetz, along with the Jensen plaintiffs SAF lists. GOA’s own FAQ warns that state and local laws may add restrictions and tells gun owners to consult an attorney before acting. That is the practical reality in all 15 of these states until something changes on the books or at the AG’s desk.

More from USA Carry:

The mindset lesson is the same one I preach on carry. Federal law sets a floor, not your whole legal picture. I keep state-by-state concealed carry permit information because the state line changes what you can lawfully do with the gun on your hip, and the NFA fight is proving the same thing for the suppressor on your rifle. A federal win you cannot use at home is not finished. FPC’s letters are an attempt to finish it.

I will continue tracking the state responses to FPC’s letters, along with the Silencer Shop/Jensen injunction and the Brown and Roberts challenges as they move through the courts.