ATF has stopped enforcing specified National Firearms Act registration and approval requirements nationwide for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and any other weapons. Now the American Suppressor Association says the next fight includes fixing laws in 15 states that still reference the NFA.
The October 9 guidance delivers a substantial victory for gun owners. Where state law permits, suppressor buyers can complete a dealer transfer on Form 4473 without a separate Form 4, advance NFA approval or federal registration.
But federal nonenforcement does not erase state statutes. For gun owners whose states tie lawful possession to federal registration, those laws remain a barrier to enjoying the full benefit of the federal retreat.
ASA Turns to NFA-Linked State Laws
In its October 9 announcement, ASA credited the combination of legislative work and litigation for opening the door to suppressor transfers without federal registration.
The association says it helped lead the effort to eliminate the $200 tax through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, then worked with NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and Texas State Rifle Association on Jensen v. ATF.
President Donald Trump signed the legislation on July 4, 2025. The suppressor transfer tax dropped to zero on January 1, 2026.
According to ASA, DOJ formally notified Congress on October 1 that it would not appeal, and the October 5 appeal deadline passed. ASA is now emphasizing the state-level work still ahead.
“We will continue our work in the 15 states that reference the NFA within state statutes,” the ASA said.
That commitment addresses an immediate problem: federal relief can leave gun owners facing state requirements built around the registration system Washington has stopped enforcing.
What Changed at the Gun Counter
ATF’s October 9 open letter stops requiring NFA approval before making or transferring the covered items and stops requiring their registration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
The court’s injunction remains limited to the plaintiffs and other specified persons. DOJ’s enforcement discretion extends the policy to everyone otherwise subject to those requirements.
Suppressor dealer transfers still require Form 4473, applicable NICS checks and ordinary Gun Control Act records. With limited exceptions, dealers may transfer suppressors to unlicensed residents of their own state. Form 3 approval is no longer required for dealer-to-dealer suppressor transfers, while applicable special occupational taxes remain.
SBRs and SBSs retain separate GCA provisions. ATF is temporarily declining to enforce the dealer-transfer authorization requirement while developing a replacement process. Interstate transportation still requires Form 20 approval.
Machine guns and destructive devices remain subject to the full NFA regime.
Why State Laws Still Matter
Some state statutes prohibit possession of specified firearms or devices while providing exceptions for items registered under federal law or held in compliance with it. Those exceptions become critical when a buyer acquires a suppressor without entering it into the federal registry.
In its published FAQ, ATF expressly declines to say whether an unregistered item held under the injunction or its enforcement policy satisfies a particular state’s requirements.
The agency will continue accepting voluntary NFA applications. Dealers also remain prohibited from transferring firearms in violation of state or local law.
For state lawmakers, the task is clear: remove provisions that keep gun owners dependent on federal registration after the federal government has stopped enforcing it. A state should not preserve the burden of an obsolete tax process by embedding that process in its own criminal code.
The 15 States Where NFA-Linked Laws Still Burden Gun Owners
On October 9, Firearms Policy Coalition identified Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin in its outreach to state attorneys general. FPC is seeking immediate nonenforcement and permanent legislative repeal.
These states do not all impose the same restriction. Some expressly require registration; others refer to federal permission or NFA compliance. The statutes below show why the federal victory has not eliminated every state barrier. Other states also have restrictions on SBRs, SBSs or AOWs; this list addresses the 15 states targeted in the current state-law initiative.
Alaska: Registration Supplies the Defense
Under AS 11.61.200(a)(3), (c) and (h), suppressors, SBRs and SBSs fall within the state’s prohibited-weapons provisions. Manufacturing, possessing, transporting, selling or transferring a prohibited weapon is forbidden, with an affirmative defense based on registration under the NFA.
A Form 4473 alone does not establish the registration specified in that defense. Federal nonenforcement leaves this state-law obstacle intact.
Colorado: A Permit-and-License Defense
C.R.S. § 18-12-102 classifies suppressors, short rifles and short shotguns as dangerous weapons and makes knowing possession a class 5 felony. An affirmative defense applies to a person holding a valid permit and license for the weapon.
The provision does not expressly name the NFA or federal registration. The problem is the permit-and-license defense when ATF no longer requires individual approval—not an explicit state command to file Form 4.
Connecticut: Federal or State Permission
Connecticut Gen. Stat. § 53a-211 makes ownership, control or possession of a suppressor or specified sawed-off shotgun a class D felony. It exempts persons and entities licensed or otherwise permitted by federal or state law to possess them.
That wording is broader than an express registration requirement. Whether federal nonenforcement satisfies the permission exception is the unresolved issue; the statute does not itself say every owner must file Form 4.
Georgia: An Express NFA-Registration Exception
O.C.G.A. §§ 16-11-123 and 16-11-124(4) prohibit possession of suppressors, sawed-off rifles, sawed-off shotguns and other listed weapons, subject to exceptions. The ordinary civilian possession exception expressly relies on registration in accordance with the NFA.
That creates a direct registration obstacle for an otherwise eligible gun owner seeking a transfer solely on Form 4473.
Georgia’s HB 1324, which proposed removing the suppressor prohibition, lost on third reading in March 2026.
Michigan: Federal Approval and Registration Paperwork
MCL 750.224 prohibits suppressors, with a federal-licensing exception. Michigan Attorney General Opinion 7260 interprets that exception to cover people licensed or approved by ATF to possess, manufacture or sell them. Removing the individual approval process therefore raises a state-law question.
MCL 750.224b separately exempts SBRs and SBSs lawfully made, transferred or possessed under federal law. But subsection (5) requires owners of those firearms greater than 26 inches long to carry a copy of federal registration while transporting or using them.
Violations can lead to a civil fine, seizure and eventual forfeiture. Firearms 26 inches or shorter have additional state requirements under subsection (4).
Mississippi: Attorney General Confirms Form 4 Is Voluntary
Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch issued an October 12 statement concluding that Form 4 is voluntary for suppressor buyers under the current federal policy.
“It is our opinion that ATF Form 4 for suppressors is voluntary for Mississippians as well,” Fitch said.
🚨BREAKING: According to the Mississippi AG:
“it is our opinion that ATF Form 4 for suppressors is voluntary for Mississippians.”
Thank you for your leadership @LynnFitchAG! We look forward to working with you and your team to clarify the law during the 2027 legislative session!
— American Suppressor Association (@AmSuppressor) October 13, 2026
Miss. Code § 97-37-31 ties suppressor manufacture, sale and possession to federal authorization. Fitch concluded that ATF’s October 9 guidance makes Form 4 voluntary under that existing language. This resolves the ambiguity identified earlier without repealing the statute.
ASA welcomed the announcement and said it looks forward to working with Fitch during the 2027 legislative session.
Fitch plans to seek legislation removing the federal-law reference and amendments to related provisions, including § 97-37-1, which restricts concealed carrying of suppressors through fines or imprisonment. She credited NRA and ASA with helping identify needed amendments.
Mississippi’s clarification is progress toward restored gun rights. The next step is removing the statutory burdens permanently, so lawful suppressor ownership does not depend on a future administration’s enforcement policy.
Montana: Nonregistration Becomes Evidence of Criminal Intent
MCA § 45-8-336 criminalizes suppressor possession and related activities when a person intends criminal use or knows another person has that purpose. The separate problem is § 45-8-337, which makes possession of a suppressor not registered under federal law prima facie evidence of an unlawful purpose.
That is an evidentiary rule rather than a blanket registration-based possession ban. It nevertheless allows the absence of federal registration to support an allegation of criminal intent—an especially objectionable burden when Washington is no longer requiring registration.
Nevada: Suppressor Authorization, Short-Barreled Firearm Registration
NRS 202.350 restricts suppressor manufacture, sale, possession and use unless authorized by federal law. Its exception covers federal licensing, authorization or permission, with the burden of establishing that status placed on the person claiming it.
NRS 202.275 separately prohibits SBRs and SBSs, with exceptions including possession by specified federal licensees, possession by a person to whom the firearm is federally registered, and qualifying collector items or curios and relics.
The suppressor and short-barreled-firearm provisions therefore require separate analysis.
North Carolina: NFA Compliance Under an Inflated Label
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.8 places suppressors, SBRs and SBSs within its “weapon of mass death and destruction” category. It prohibits possession, manufacture, transportation, sale and other activities, subject to exceptions. One key exception covers lawful ownership or possession in compliance with the NFA.
The label does not change what these items are. It does, however, attach state criminal exposure to the question of NFA compliance. Federal nonenforcement alone does not resolve how North Carolina will apply that exception.
North Dakota: Compliance With the NFA
N.D.C.C. § 62.1-05-01 bars purchasing, selling or possessing suppressors and other specified weapons unless the person has complied with the NFA. Violations are class C felonies and can result in forfeiture.
The statute uses compliance language, leaving a state-law question about unregistered items acquired under federal nonenforcement.
Ohio: A Federal-Registry Exception
Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2923.11 and 2923.17 classify suppressors and specified short-barreled firearms as dangerous ordnance and generally prohibit acquiring, possessing, carrying or using them. A key exception expressly covers owners of items registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
Other exceptions exist, including qualifying state licenses or permits and a hunting-related suppressor exception. But the federal-registration exception is explicit: a Form 4473-only transfer does not put the item in that registry.
Oregon: Registration Also Protects Against Arrest
ORS 166.272 generally makes knowing possession of a suppressor, SBR or SBS a class B felony. Registration as required under federal law supplies an affirmative defense. Carrying documentation of that registration also protects the owner against arrest or charging under the section.
An owner acquiring an unregistered item under ATF’s policy lacks the registration document the statute describes. Oregon lawmakers need to address both the possession provision and the paperwork-based protection.
Pennsylvania: NFA Compliance and a Separate Lawful-Purpose Exception
18 Pa.C.S. § 908 restricts offensive weapons, including specified sawed-off shotguns and firearms specially made or adapted for concealment or silent discharge. It provides an NFA-compliance defense, but also other defenses and a separate exception for firearms used or possessed for purposes not prohibited by Pennsylvania law.
The statute defines firearm around projectile-firing weapons and their frames or receivers. It does not simply reproduce the federal definition that includes suppressors.
Those distinctions matter when analyzing a standalone suppressor versus a firearm adapted for silent discharge. Pennsylvania’s restrictions consequently require attention to the particular item and the available exceptions, rather than an assumption that every SBR or suppressor requires federal registration under § 908.
Washington: Suppressor Use Requires Registration
RCW 9.41.250(1)(c) makes suppressor use a gross misdemeanor unless the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law. This provision regulates use, rather than imposing a standalone suppressor-possession ban.
RCW 9.41.190 separately permits SBRs when the person complies with applicable federal law. SBSs remain generally prohibited, subject to limited exceptions, including an affirmative defense for qualifying firearms acquired before July 1, 1994.
Federal relief therefore does not make Washington’s suppressor, SBR and SBS rules interchangeable.
Wisconsin: Suppressor Licensing and Registration
Wis. Stat. § 941.298 makes suppressor sale, delivery or possession a class H felony unless an exception applies. The ordinary civilian exception expressly refers to compliance with the NFA’s licensing and registration requirements.
§ 941.28 separately restricts SBRs and SBSs. It includes an NFA licensing-and-registration exception, but also broader language excluding firearms that may lawfully be possessed under federal law.
That additional wording must be considered; Wisconsin’s suppressor and short-barreled-firearm statutes are not identical.
The common problem is that states still make gun owners navigate criminal prohibitions, paperwork requirements or adverse presumptions built around federal NFA regulation. Legislatures should remove those burdens. Restoring basic gun rights should not leave peaceable Americans proving that they satisfied a registration process the federal government has stopped enforcing.
Restored Gun Rights Must Be Permanent
The court’s reasoning exposes the constitutional problem with retaining a tax-based registration system after Congress has reduced the relevant tax to zero. ATF says the court also rejected reliance on the Commerce Clause because Congress did not invoke that power when it enacted the NFA.
That holding concerns Congress’s enumerated powers. It does not establish that the entire NFA has been invalidated under the Second Amendment.
The larger issue remains straightforward: suppressors and short-barreled firearms should never have been subjected to the NFA’s special taxation, registration and permission requirements.
ATF warns that enforcement could resume if legal circumstances change or DOJ rescinds the policy. Federal law provides no automatic grandfathering for unregistered items.
That is why this victory must lead to permanent reform. Congress should remove these items from the NFA entirely as a minimum step toward full repeal. States should dismantle the laws that preserve the same burdens.
Gun owners deserve restored rights secured in law. They should not have to rely on the next administration’s willingness to leave those rights alone.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
