Originally Posted By Pennsilfaanisch:


Pennsylvania state law explicitly ties its "offensive weapons" exemption (all NFA items) to compliance with federal law, meaning full federal deregulation would automatically simplify possession in PA. Basically, if you're not complying with federal regs, then they're illegal in the state. Can't break a law if it no longer exists.

Originally Posted By Bravo_Six:
@Wils91

Did you hear anything back on this?

Originally Posted By Wils91:


They're looking into it l, but I don't have anything to report yet.

Originally Posted By ChrisLe:
I checked Silencershop's website. As per SS, any NFA item shipped to PA still requires ATF paperwork (Form 1 or 4) to comply with PA State law. Not a definitive answer but that's where we stand as of today.

Originally Posted By Bravo_Six:


Well, the offensive weapon statute makes no reference to SBRs, so I think we might be good there (unless there is another law that I'm forgetting).

Some AOWs might be OK, too.

Regardless, I think that we need to start making an effort to get the whole statute shitcanned.

Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot:
Beside paragraph 1. We also have paragraph 3 to look at.

"Paragraph (3)  This section shall not apply to any person who makes, repairs, sells or otherwise deals in, uses or possesses any firearm for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth."

This reads as though possession of a Suppressor or SBS is only an add on crime if you commit a crime with it.  And on they're own are perfectly legal.

Originally Posted By Bravo_Six:


I agree, but it is just a really weird law the way it's written.

Also, a silencer doesn't appear to meet the definition of a "firearm" under this statute, so paragraph 3 arguably doesn't apply to suppressors.*

Additionally, this is the statute that the ATF uses when it denies F1s for grenades in PA.  A grenade better meets the definition of "firearm" than a suppressor does.

I'm planning to write Scott Perry about this after work.  He signed the letter urging the DOJ to not appeal.  I'm also going to write my state reps.  We need to get clarification in writing from the Commonwealth.  We also need to get the legislature to take steps in abolishing the statute in its entirety.

*edit: I might be wrong on that.  Every time I read this stupid law I find myself interpreting it differently.

Originally Posted By kab85:
It's unclear if an unprocessed suppressor transfer is clearly lawful under Pennsylvania law. There is a very plausible argument that it is, but 908 creates a state-law ambiguity that Jensen/Silencer Shop did not resolve. The key distinction is between “not subject to enforcement of an NFA requirement” and “complied with the National Firearms Act.” Judge Hendrix's ruling permanently enjoins the federal defendants from enforcing the challenged NFA provisions concerning untaxed firearms against the covered plaintiffs, members, and customers. So for a person actually protected by the injunction, the federal side can be summarized roughly as: You don't have to file Form 4/register because ATF is enjoined from requiring you to do so.

But Pennsylvania's statute asks a subtly different question; 18 Pa 908(a) independently criminalizes making, selling, dealing in, using, or possessing an "offensive weapon." Section 908(b)(1) then gives the defendant an affirmative defense if he "complied with the National Firearms Act." Pennsylvania didn't write: "if the weapon is lawful under federal law "or" if registration is not required under federal law." It specifically chose "complied with the National Firearms Act."

There is actually some remarkably relevant pre-Jensen federal litigation from Pennsylvania. In United States v. Palmetto State Armory PA-15 Machinegun Receiver/Frame (Watson), the federal government argued that if the plaintiff succeeded in eliminating the applicable federal NFA regulation, Pennsylvania's independent 908 prohibition would remain because there would then be no NFA regulation with which he could comply. The district court recorded that argument, although it did not resolve this particular state-law question.

And an older Pennsylvania case, Oefinger v. Zimmerman, treated 908(b)(1) as an affirmative defense deliberately created by the Pennsylvania legislature rather than as a general exemption for federally lawful conduct. The court emphasized that Pennsylvania chose NFA compliance as the defense.

That make it vague to equate "ATF cannot enforce registration against me" automatically with "I have complied with the NFA." There is nevertheless a strong argument the other way.

Suppose I am a protected GOA member and buy a suppressor today in a transaction covered by Hendrix's injunction. The federal government is judicially prohibited from requiring the registration/approval provisions that would otherwise apply. It would be quite reasonable to argue: Compliance means doing everything the NFA lawfully requires of me. If, because of the injunction, the NFA lawfully requires zero registration/approval actions from this particular person in this particular transaction, the person has done everything required of him. Therefore: 0 required acts − 0 omitted required acts = compliance. That is a respectable statutory argument. "Compliance" doesn't inherently mean registration.

If Congress repealed 5812 tomorrow, for example, it would be peculiar to say that nobody could ever again "comply" with 5812 because there was nothing left to do. But Jensen makes this stranger because the NFA provisions haven't been removed from the U.S. Code; Hendrix enjoined their enforcement against particular protected parties and transactions. That's not quite the same thing as Congress repealing them.

There's an additional Pennsylvania wrinkle; Section 908(c)'s definition. Pennsylvania defines a "firearm" for 908 as a projectile-expelling weapon or its frame/receiver, and 908(b)(3) now says: "This section shall not apply to any person who makes, repairs, sells or otherwise deals in, uses or possesses any firearm for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth."  That potentially helps considerably with SBR/SBS questions, because those are plainly "firearms" under Pennsylvania's 908 definition.  A standalone silencer, however, isn't obviously a "firearm" under the Pennsylvania definition — it doesn't expel a projectile.  So I would not rely on (b)(3) for a suppressor without Pennsylvania authority saying that a suppressor itself qualifies.

So the PA confusion is actually greater for silencers than it may be for SBRs/SBSs.

As of today, 8/13/26 it looks like it's still a regulatory knife edge as to whether or not the lack of requirement to comply defaults to "de facto compliance" or "no way to comply, therefore no mechanism to legally proceed.

I'm an SOT and we are awaiting some guidance. I'm also a GOA member and I'm half tempted to transfer myself a SBR or can just to see where it leads.

Originally Posted By pug826:


So you believe that both SBRs and SBSs are likely going to be fine without registration, even though it calls out the SBS specifically?

Originally Posted By kab85:
It's unclear if an unprocessed suppressor transfer is clearly lawful under Pennsylvania law. There is a very plausible argument that it is, but 908 creates a state-law ambiguity that Jensen/Silencer Shop did not resolve. The key distinction is between "not subject to enforcement of an NFA requirement" and "complied with the National Firearms Act." Judge Hendrix's ruling permanently enjoins the federal defendants from enforcing the challenged NFA provisions concerning untaxed firearms against the covered plaintiffs, members, and customers. So for a person actually protected by the injunction, the federal side can be summarized roughly as: You don't have to file Form 4/register because ATF is enjoined from requiring you to do so.

But Pennsylvania's statute asks a subtly different question; 18 Pa 908(a) independently criminalizes making, selling, dealing in, using, or possessing an "offensive weapon." Section 908(b)(1) then gives the defendant an affirmative defense if he "complied with the National Firearms Act." Pennsylvania didn't write: "if the weapon is lawful under federal law "or" if registration is not required under federal law." It specifically chose "complied with the National Firearms Act."

There is actually some remarkably relevant pre-Jensen federal litigation from Pennsylvania. In United States v. Palmetto State Armory PA-15 Machinegun Receiver/Frame (Watson), the federal government argued that if the plaintiff succeeded in eliminating the applicable federal NFA regulation, Pennsylvania's independent 908 prohibition would remain because there would then be no NFA regulation with which he could comply. The district court recorded that argument, although it did not resolve this particular state-law question.

And an older Pennsylvania case, Oefinger v. Zimmerman, treated 908(b)(1) as an affirmative defense deliberately created by the Pennsylvania legislature rather than as a general exemption for federally lawful conduct. The court emphasized that Pennsylvania chose NFA compliance as the defense.

That make it vague to equate "ATF cannot enforce registration against me" automatically with "I have complied with the NFA." There is nevertheless a strong argument the other way.

Suppose I am a protected GOA member and buy a suppressor today in a transaction covered by Hendrix's injunction. The federal government is judicially prohibited from requiring the registration/approval provisions that would otherwise apply. It would be quite reasonable to argue: Compliance means doing everything the NFA lawfully requires of me. If, because of the injunction, the NFA lawfully requires zero registration/approval actions from this particular person in this particular transaction, the person has done everything required of him. Therefore: 0 required acts   0 omitted required acts = compliance. That is a respectable statutory argument. "Compliance" doesn't inherently mean registration.

If Congress repealed 5812 tomorrow, for example, it would be peculiar to say that nobody could ever again "comply" with 5812 because there was nothing left to do. But Jensen makes this stranger because the NFA provisions haven't been removed from the U.S. Code; Hendrix enjoined their enforcement against particular protected parties and transactions. That's not quite the same thing as Congress repealing them.

There's an additional Pennsylvania wrinkle; Section 908(c)'s definition. Pennsylvania defines a "firearm" for 908 as a projectile-expelling weapon or its frame/receiver, and 908(b)(3) now says: "This section shall not apply to any person who makes, repairs, sells or otherwise deals in, uses or possesses any firearm for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth."  That potentially helps considerably with SBR/SBS questions, because those are plainly "firearms" under Pennsylvania's 908 definition.  A standalone silencer, however, isn't obviously a "firearm" under the Pennsylvania definition   it doesn't expel a projectile.  So I would not rely on (b)(3) for a suppressor without Pennsylvania authority saying that a suppressor itself qualifies.

So the PA confusion is actually greater for silencers than it may be for SBRs/SBSs.

As of today, 8/13/26 it looks like it's still a regulatory knife edge as to whether or not the lack of requirement to comply defaults to "de facto compliance" or "no way to comply, therefore no mechanism to legally proceed.

I'm an SOT and we are awaiting some guidance. I'm also a GOA member and I'm half tempted to transfer myself a SBR or can just to see where it leads.

Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot:
Silencer Shop posted the following states including Pennsylvania, legality of 4473 transfers is pending based upon further interpretation, due to the "in compliance" language.

North Dakota, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Oregon

Originally Posted By Emt1581:
Ultimately, who makes the determination of this stuff at the PA state level based on the injunction?  Is it the attorney general, governor, house, senate, etc.??  

EDIT: Just heard from my dealer.  "No change unfortunately " and referred me to the SS link.

Originally Posted By Piledriver2235:
I get the ffls needing to wait for guidance for form 4 cans and firearms. But wonder about former Form 1 stuff like sbr, sbs?
It seems that im not in violation of the nfa, so therefore I am in compliance.
At least I hope so

Originally Posted By kab85:


If the ATF offers guidance that they consider it to be "in compliance" with the NFA, the state will probably defer to that since they don't have the horsepower to get explicit ban language in place.

If the ATF offers guidance that it is not considered in compliance, we will remain an NFA paperwork state unless the Rs have the horsepower to get the language stricken.

Of course the AG is going to grandstand either way, but they have no vested interest in setting up a fight with BATFE or DOJ. Feds just handed them the ability to shrug and say, "look what the bad orange man did."

Originally Posted By kab85:


If the ATF offers guidance that they consider it to be "in compliance" with the NFA, the state will probably defer to that since they don't have the horsepower to get explicit ban language in place.

If the ATF offers guidance that it is not considered in compliance, we will remain an NFA paperwork state unless the Rs have the horsepower to get the language stricken.

Of course the AG is going to grandstand either way, but they have no vested interest in setting up a fight with BATFE or DOJ. Feds just handed them the ability to shrug and say, "look what the bad orange man did."

Originally Posted By kab85:
It's unclear if an unprocessed suppressor transfer is clearly lawful under Pennsylvania law. There is a very plausible argument that it is, but 908 creates a state-law ambiguity that Jensen/Silencer Shop did not resolve. The key distinction is between “not subject to enforcement of an NFA requirement” and “complied with the National Firearms Act.” Judge Hendrix's ruling permanently enjoins the federal defendants from enforcing the challenged NFA provisions concerning untaxed firearms against the covered plaintiffs, members, and customers. So for a person actually protected by the injunction, the federal side can be summarized roughly as: You don't have to file Form 4/register because ATF is enjoined from requiring you to do so.

But Pennsylvania's statute asks a subtly different question; 18 Pa 908(a) independently criminalizes making, selling, dealing in, using, or possessing an "offensive weapon." Section 908(b)(1) then gives the defendant an affirmative defense if he "complied with the National Firearms Act." Pennsylvania didn't write: "if the weapon is lawful under federal law "or" if registration is not required under federal law." It specifically chose "complied with the National Firearms Act."

There is actually some remarkably relevant pre-Jensen federal litigation from Pennsylvania. In United States v. Palmetto State Armory PA-15 Machinegun Receiver/Frame (Watson), the federal government argued that if the plaintiff succeeded in eliminating the applicable federal NFA regulation, Pennsylvania's independent 908 prohibition would remain because there would then be no NFA regulation with which he could comply. The district court recorded that argument, although it did not resolve this particular state-law question.

And an older Pennsylvania case, Oefinger v. Zimmerman, treated 908(b)(1) as an affirmative defense deliberately created by the Pennsylvania legislature rather than as a general exemption for federally lawful conduct. The court emphasized that Pennsylvania chose NFA compliance as the defense.

That make it vague to equate "ATF cannot enforce registration against me" automatically with "I have complied with the NFA." There is nevertheless a strong argument the other way.

Suppose I am a protected GOA member and buy a suppressor today in a transaction covered by Hendrix's injunction. The federal government is judicially prohibited from requiring the registration/approval provisions that would otherwise apply. It would be quite reasonable to argue: Compliance means doing everything the NFA lawfully requires of me. If, because of the injunction, the NFA lawfully requires zero registration/approval actions from this particular person in this particular transaction, the person has done everything required of him. Therefore: 0 required acts − 0 omitted required acts = compliance. That is a respectable statutory argument. "Compliance" doesn't inherently mean registration.

If Congress repealed 5812 tomorrow, for example, it would be peculiar to say that nobody could ever again "comply" with 5812 because there was nothing left to do. But Jensen makes this stranger because the NFA provisions haven't been removed from the U.S. Code; Hendrix enjoined their enforcement against particular protected parties and transactions. That's not quite the same thing as Congress repealing them.

There's an additional Pennsylvania wrinkle; Section 908(c)'s definition. Pennsylvania defines a "firearm" for 908 as a projectile-expelling weapon or its frame/receiver, and 908(b)(3) now says: "This section shall not apply to any person who makes, repairs, sells or otherwise deals in, uses or possesses any firearm for purposes not prohibited by the laws of this Commonwealth."  That potentially helps considerably with SBR/SBS questions, because those are plainly "firearms" under Pennsylvania's 908 definition.  A standalone silencer, however, isn't obviously a "firearm" under the Pennsylvania definition — it doesn't expel a projectile.  So I would not rely on (b)(3) for a suppressor without Pennsylvania authority saying that a suppressor itself qualifies.

So the PA confusion is actually greater for silencers than it may be for SBRs/SBSs.

As of today, 8/13/26 it looks like it's still a regulatory knife edge as to whether or not the lack of requirement to comply defaults to "de facto compliance" or "no way to comply, therefore no mechanism to legally proceed.

I'm an SOT and we are awaiting some guidance. I'm also a GOA member and I'm half tempted to transfer myself a SBR or can just to see where it leads.

Originally Posted By Bravo_Six:


@kab85

This is an excellent analysis!  However, I do have one question: where are you seeing a prohibition on SBRs under PA law?

Section 908 specifically defines offensive weapon as including SBSs, but I do not see any mention of SBRs.  Further, it's been my understanding that PA legally treats SBRs as handguns; hence the reason that we can lawfully drive around with loaded SBRs during deer season.  I've been looking at it like SBRs are OK to make in PA for anyone covered by the injunctions.  I might be missing something, however.

Originally Posted By kab85:


Typically, prosecution falls back on "...firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment...". This is usually associated with a prosecution for someone who doesn't have a stamp, but there's no history of PA looking the other way on an SBR when they can incorporate it under the "specially adapted for concealment."

Right wrong or indifferent, you're unlikely to find the AG offering up SBRs.

Originally Posted By kab85:


Typically, prosecution falls back on "...firearm specially made or specially adapted for concealment...". This is usually associated with a prosecution for someone who doesn't have a stamp, but there's no history of PA looking the other way on an SBR when they can incorporate it under the "specially adapted for concealment."

Right wrong or indifferent, you're unlikely to find the AG offering up SBRs.

Originally Posted By kab85:


Adding the stock to a pistol changes the definition to rifle (per GCA). If it's less than 16", it's a SBR, and therein loops back into the NFA. 🙃

Makes sense right?

Originally Posted By Pennsilfaanisch:

I could be wrong, but I think it would be monumentally stupid for any democrats with future office aspirations to go down that road. Shapiro wants to be president, lobbying to get commonly owned items banned would create a lot of pissed off Pennsylvanians.

Originally Posted By pug826:
I honestly feel like this shitty law makes PA a non-NFA state. You have to stretch that wording far more to make it fit NFA state than you do to make it fit free state.

Originally Posted By Bravo_Six:


The longer I think it over, the more I tend to agree with you.  The statute is ridiculously ambiguous.  I certainly don't want to be the test case, but I can't imagine it holding up to scrutiny as long as you are not breaking other laws if/when arrested.

Originally Posted By Basil:
I believe that video specifically applies to Silencer Shop Foundation vs ATF - so yes, if you are ONLY covered under the Silencer Shop Foundation vs. ATF injunction, you are still required to comply with the federal marking requirements.

If you are covered under the Jensen vs ATF injunction, however, that ruling specifically talks about marking requirements, and how plaintiffs are NOT required to add the "maker" markings.

Here's the problem gray area for me - I'm still submitting Form 1's for my SBR's (just got one back in less than 48 hours) - I am covered under federal law with the Jensen injunction from the requirement to add my name and city to the SBR or SBS.  BUT - am I covered under PA law from having to add that "maker" marking to the firearm?  I've complied with all of the Federal laws I am required to in order to build that SBR/SBS, which is what it appears that PA requires - but since that rule is still on the books, and the Feds are not allowed to compel me to add that marking, does that still mean I'm complying with it, or do I still need to mark it?

That's the problem.