Armory Sponsor
Posted: 9/6/2026 11:27:18 AM EDT
|
I’ve looked around and I haven’t seen anyone answer this question so feel free to remove if it’s been covered elsewhere. I’m in Mississippi which currently (September 2026) still requires a Form 4 to transfer NFA items. But neighboring states Alabama and Louisiana can transfer on a 4473 per the recent ruling. NFA items transferred on a 4473 have no proof of registration. So they can thus be possessed without going through the NFA process. If an owner from one of these states drives through Mississippi with their SBR, SBS, AOW, or Suppressor, they have nothing to display showing legal ownership in a state that requires transfers to take place within the previous NFA framework. Question #1: Is a non-Mississippi resident breaking the law if he is pulled over and searched in Mississippi and a former NFA item is discovered? Question #2: If an item can be transferred over a 4473, can it also be sold face to face just like every other 4473 firearm can be? Question #3: In the event of former Form 1 process, if possession without proof of NFA documentation is not illegal in the prior two cases, would there be a difference between building your own SBR/SBS/AOW/Suppressor without filing a Form 1 then also be legal? How would they prove that it was not transferred via one of the legal means detailed earlier? Question #4: As currently written/decided, is the only requirement to be one of the plaintiffs (GOA, silencerco, B&T, etc)? So to cover your bases have a GOA membership? Help me see where my logic falls apart? |
ARFCOM’s CHO
Joined:
Aug 2022
Posts:
5324
EE: 100% (1)
FL, USA
|
I'm not a lawyer, but all of them I've talked to about this just shrug and say "we dont know yet" This is still a LOT of ambiguity with this case and until the feds make an official statement, no one really knows how to handle this situation. |
"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."
|
Originally Posted By NvrBrdWes: I'm not a lawyer, but all of them I've talked to about this just shrug and say "we dont know yet" This is still a LOT of ambiguity with this case and until the feds make an official statement, no one really knows how to handle this situation. That seems to be the common statement of the past month. Hopefully it’ll be the death knell to the NFA and won’t have a massive rebound. |
ARFCOM’s CHO
Joined:
Aug 2022
Posts:
5327
EE: 100% (1)
FL, USA
|
Originally Posted By Andi-in-BKK: That seems to be the common statement of the past month. Hopefully it’ll be the death knell to the NFA and won’t have a massive rebound. that is the hope... |
"I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."
|
Originally Posted By Andi-in-BKK: I’ve looked around and I haven’t seen anyone answer this question so feel free to remove if it’s been covered elsewhere. I’m in Mississippi which currently (September 2026) still requires a Form 4 to transfer NFA items. But neighboring states Alabama and Louisiana can transfer on a 4473 per the recent ruling. A Form 3 is still required for manufacturer>distributor>dealer. Dealers transferring via Form 4473 only, have that 4473 showing the lawful transfer of possession. If an owner from one of these states drives through Mississippi with their SBR, SBS, AOW, or Suppressor, they have nothing to display showing legal ownership in a state that requires transfers to take place within the previous NFA framework. "Ownership" is not relevant, "lawful possession" is. If a state requires the possessor to have a Form 4, he needs to have a Form 4. Question #1: Is a non-Mississippi resident breaking the law if he is pulled over and searched in Mississippi and a former NFA item is discovered? What does Mississippi law state? Question #2: If an item can be transferred over a 4473, can it also be sold face to face just like every other 4473 firearm can be? Again, EVERY firearm is a "4473 firearm", thats the record of a firearm from a licensed dealer to a nonlicensee. Nonlicensees do not use a 4473. Whether the transfer is legal under the emergency injunction is a question for someone knowledgeable in your states laws. |
Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
|
Originally Posted By DogtownTom: A Form 3 is still required for manufacturer>distributor>dealer. Dealers transferring via Form 4473 only, have that 4473 showing the lawful transfer of possession. "Ownership" is not relevant, "lawful possession" is. If a state requires the possessor to have a Form 4, he needs to have a Form 4. What does Mississippi law state? Again, EVERY firearm is a "4473 firearm", thats the record of a firearm from a licensed dealer to a nonlicensee. Nonlicensees do not use a 4473. Whether the transfer is legal under the emergency injunction is a question for someone knowledgeable in your states laws. Hopefully we’ll get some clarity in the coming months. Last I heard January 5th was the soonest they were going to be able to provide an answer. |
|
Originally Posted By Andi-in-BKK: That seems to be the common statement of the past month. Hopefully it’ll be the death knell to the NFA and won’t have a massive rebound. As if. The NFA is AFT's raison d'etre, & I don't expect anything less than federalized NG occupation of its HQ before letting go of it even enters the chat. The courts can’t enforce a thing. |
|
Originally Posted By Master_Blaster: As if. The NFA is AFT's raison d'etre, & I don't expect anything less than federalized NG occupation of its HQ before letting go of it even enters the chat. The courts can’t enforce a thing. Originally Posted By Master_Blaster: Originally Posted By Andi-in-BKK: That seems to be the common statement of the past month. Hopefully it’ll be the death knell to the NFA and won’t have a massive rebound. As if. The NFA is AFT's raison d'etre, & I don't expect anything less than federalized NG occupation of its HQ before letting go of it even enters the chat. The courts can’t enforce a thing. Given that the Director of the ATF has confirmed they are obeying the injunction, and that the injunction renders enforcement of much of the NFA unworkable, the situation is far better than you imagine. |
|
Originally Posted By backbencher: Given that the Director of the ATF has confirmed they are obeying the injunction, and that the injunction renders enforcement of much of the NFA unworkable, the situation is far better than you imagine. If he's having that kind of impact, then why is there so much uncertainty? But I digress. Let's see how well this ages. I give this, whatever it akchuwally is, 1.5 years & then it's back to basics. |
Armory Sponsor