Crap. WI law still disallows suppressors without federal registration, possibly allows SBRs/SBS'. (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/13/2026 9:27:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: vmpglenn][Edited]
|
I am not a lawyer... But it looks like we in WI are still unable to bypass the NFA registration process for suppressors (if you meet certain criteria, like being a PSA customer, member of GOA, etc) but the language seems to allow SBRs/SBS'. Anyone hear any different? ETA: Edited for clarity. ETA 2: Important note that only the JENSEN plaintiffs are afforded protection against Form 1 federal enforcement. Those plaintiffs (and members/customers where applicable) are: - Hot Shots Custom LLC (Commercial plaintiff) - Texas State Rifle Association (NRA's Texas affiliate) - FPC Action Foundation (and associated legal entities) - Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) So if you are a GOA member or a PSA customer you CANNOT skip a Form 1! Details here:  BREAKING NEWS! HUGE NFA VICTORY BREAKDOWN WITH STEPHEN HALBROOK |
Scepticism is an exercise, not a life; it is a discipline fit to purify the mind of prejudice and render it all the more apt, when the time comes, to believe and to act wisely. -- George Santayana
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
|
WI statute language specifically requires "federal registration" for suppressors, so Form 4. However, and this is where I get lost, WI statute language allows SBRs/SBS' as long as they "...may be lawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm that could have been lawfully registered at the time of the enactment of the national firearms act of 1968." Also, WI statute for SBR/SBS "does not apply to the manufacture of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles for any person or group authorized to possess these weapons." So suppressors are still form 4, but SBR/SBS are allowed to be manufactured and possessed without a Form 1/Form 4? 
|
Scepticism is an exercise, not a life; it is a discipline fit to purify the mind of prejudice and render it all the more apt, when the time comes, to believe and to act wisely. -- George Santayana
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
|
Originally Posted By lorazepam: So The gov has said I no longer need a form 1 to make my own suppressor or sbr. Not sure how the state is going to treat roll your own. I am in compliance with fed law, how will it work state wise? This is my question also. I don't really want to buy a suppressor but I have every intention of creating one, if legal to do so. |
|
Me and a couple of buddies were talking about this too. Its confusing, and doesnt appear to change anything in WI. The decision needs to be cleaned up to override any state law. Id love to see all the no suppressor/SBR states to start whining when they get it wiped away. |
USPSA Master Race
Joined:
Feb 2023
Posts:
26817
EE: 100% (49)
WI, USA
|
The actual suppressor statute, for reference: 941.298 Firearm silencers. (1) In this section, “firearm silencer” means any device for silencing, muffling or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating such a device, and any part intended only for use in that assembly or fabrication. (2) Whoever sells, delivers or possesses a firearm silencer is guilty of a Class H felony. (3) Subsection (2) does not apply to sales or deliveries of firearm silencers to or possession of firearm silencers by any of the following: (a) Any peace officer who is acting in compliance with the written policies of the officer’s department or agency. This paragraph does not apply to any officer whose department or agency does not have such a policy. Notwithstanding s. 939.22 (22), this paragraph does not apply to a commission warden. (b) Any armed forces or national guard personnel, while in the line of duty. (c) Any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. History: 1991 a. 39; 2001 a. 109; 2007 a. 27. Silencers are not “arms” for the purposes of the 2nd amendment. The prohibition on possession of a silencer under this section does not impose a burden on conduct falling within the scope of the 2nd amendment’s guarantee and therefore is not unconstitutional. State v. Barrett, 2020 WI App 13, 391 Wis. 2d 283, 941 N.W.2d 866, 18-2324. This really tells us nothing, because if "26 USC 5801 to 5872" still exists, it means we still have to follow it, I guess? Statute for SBR/SBS reads about the same: Wisconsin Statutes Crimes (Ch. 938 to 951) § 941.28. Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle: (1) In this section: (a) “Rifle” means a firearm designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a metallic cartridge to fire through a rifled barrel a single projectile for each pull of the trigger. (b) “Short-barreled rifle” means a rifle having one or more barrels having a length of less than 16 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a rifle having an overall length of less than 26 inches. (c) “Short-barreled shotgun” means a shotgun having one or more barrels having a length of less than 18 inches measured from closed breech or bolt face to muzzle or a shotgun having an overall length of less than 26 inches. (d) “Shotgun” means a weapon designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder or hip and designed or redesigned and made or remade to use the energy of a propellant in a fixed shotgun shell to fire through a smooth bore either a number of ball shot or a single projectile for each single pull of the trigger. (2) No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle. (3) Any person violating this section is guilty of a Class H felony. (4) This section does not apply to the sale, purchase, possession, use or transportation of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle to or by any armed forces or national guard personnel in line of duty, any peace officer of the United States or of any political subdivision of the United States or any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. This section does not apply to the manufacture of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles for any person or group authorized to possess these weapons. The restriction on transportation contained in this section does not apply to common carriers. This section shall not apply to any firearm that may be lawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm that could have been lawfully registered at the time of the enactment of the national firearms act of 1968. (5) Any firearm seized under this section is subject to s. 968.20(3) and is presumed to be contraband. |
|
I submitted this to the WI DOJ/ AG office: With the injunction of suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) being removed from the National Firearms Act (NFA), I am requesting clarification. State law prohibits the sale, transfer or manufacture of said items unless you have complied with the requirements of federal law 26 USC 5801 to 5872. However, under this injunction, certain groups, i.e. members of Gun Owners of America and customers of Silencer Shop or Palmetto State Armory, are no longer required by federal law to register their items or apply for NFA approval. Does this injunction also apply to Wisconsin residents, provided they are any of the groups associated with the plaintiffs, i.e. members of GOA, or customers of Silencer Shop or PSA? Does it apply even if they are not associated with the plaintiffs? Does this injunction apply to Wisconsin residents who intend to create or modify items they already own, into suppressors or SBR/SBSs, if they are associated with the aforementioned groups? Does it apply if they are not associated with the plaintiffs? I am seeking clarification on who, if anyone, is no longer bound by the registration or approval requirements of the NFA. If I get any answers I'll be sure to share. |
|
Originally Posted By TheRX7Project: I submitted this to the WI DOJ/ AG office: If I get any answers I'll be sure to share. Wish you'd have asked about people who have suppressors pending, or approved. But that's OK. I'm sure plenty of people are asking (given how many gun-related industries are in the state). |
|
Originally Posted By lorazepam: So The gov has said I no longer need a form 1 to make my own suppressor or sbr. Not sure how the state is going to treat roll your own. I am in compliance with fed law, how will it work state wise? You gotta be a member of GOA to get the bypass as long as state regs don't override.. WI won't let you buy a gun without a background check based on a current concealed carry permit either |
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
|
Originally Posted By vmpglenn: WI statute language specifically requires "federal registration" for suppressors, so Form 4. However, and this is where I get lost, WI statute language allows SBRs/SBS' as long as they "...may be lawfully possessed under federal law, or any firearm that could have been lawfully registered at the time of the enactment of the national firearms act of 1968." Also, WI statute for SBR/SBS "does not apply to the manufacture of short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles for any person or group authorized to possess these weapons." So suppressors are still form 4, but SBR/SBS are allowed to be manufactured and possessed without a Form 1/Form 4? Proceed at your own risk for now? @The-White-Dog |
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
|
Originally Posted By NotIssued: Wish you'd have asked about people who have suppressors pending, or approved. But that's OK. I'm sure plenty of people are asking (given how many gun-related industries are in the state). Based on the law as it is written, for people with already pending or approved F1/4s I'd imagine nothing changes. You're still on the old rules, which the state law is set up to follow. |
|
941.298, subsection 3, item C -> "(c) Any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872." Suppressors are outlawed, but the above is the exception. "Outlawed" sounds ominous, but the concealed carry law acts in the same way. It's outlawed unless you are subject to an exception. Having a license to carry is your exception. Just spitballing this theory below out there.... I am NOT an attorney and never played one on TV, so don't take anything I say here as "legal advice". Anyone who takes legal advice from a locksmith deserves what they get. Whatever I say here is just my thoughts and opinions, using common sense (which the laws hardly ever do ). The way this is worded says you must comply with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. That means form 4s etc. But... if you are a plaintiff, none of that can be enforced upon you. That changes your licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. What are those? There are none for you under NFA, because the court has ruled you are not subject to them if you are a plaintiff.* So, as far as your standing under the federal law, you are in compliance with federal licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872 by doing nothing other than belonging to the plaintiff class. If your federal licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872 are now nothing, you cannot be non-compliant with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. If you cannot be non-compliant, you are therefore compliant as state law demands, are you not? *You still are subject to GCA 68 - 4473 & NICS. Are those your new fed licensing and registration requirements as a plaintiff? A 2nd theory, or hypothetical situation, whatever you want to call it. If ATF does anything to remove the form 4 process for everyone, as the letter from Rep Clyde and others urged them to do, because otherwise it is an enforcement nightmare and legally ambiguous, they would do so by rewriting the rules set forth in 26 USC 5801 to 5872. Congress makes the laws, but a federal authority like ATF, writes the rules of enforcement. ATF is responsible for what is in 26 USC 5801 to 5872. When ATF changes a rule, they don't need an act of Congress to do so, they just do it as long as it is within certain boundaries. Like bumpstocks, braces, etc. WI law says you must be compliant with requirements set forth in the NFA statutes, but has no control over what those requirements are. If ATF changes those requirements, WI law must honor them, as that's how the law is written. WI law can only be changed by the state legislature. If the ATF were to do so here, everyone would therefore be in compliance with licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872, not just the plaintiffs. Follow me? In a nutshell... Wisconsin law is not changed by this in any way, as feds cannot rewrite state law, and states cannot rewrite fed laws. You still must be in compliance with fed law to fit exception C. But what may change is what that federal law compliance actually is. If the ATF says the licensing & registration requirements are no longer needed, you are in complete compliance with 26 USC 5801 to 5872 as now written, just as WI law demands. WI cannot demand ATF have actual licensing & registration requirements for it's residents to fulfill. By being in compliance with fed laws as they exist under the rewritten 26 USC 5801 to 5872, you should still be within exception C. It doesn't say "MUST be licensed & registered", it says "has complied with" 26 USC 5801 to 5872. That's a clear and important distinction. Bottom line, we are not necessarily "fucked". It's uncharted territory here, and lots of stuff must be sorted out, both federal & state. Time will tell. A lot depends on exactly what ATF does with it's rulemaking, and how the election for State AG turns out. |
|
Originally Posted By vmpglenn: WI statute language specifically requires "federal registration" for suppressors, so Form 4. No, that's not what it says. It says "(c) Any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872." So you must be compliant with licensing & registration requirements as set forth under 26 USC 5801 to 5872. Wording is everything. The key words here are "has complied", it does not say "must be" licensed & registered. What if those registration & licensing requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872 no longer exist? Or are altered to be a 4473 & NICS? If ATF rewrites 26 USC 5801 to 5872 and removes the requirements totally, and they no longer exist, are you not "compliant" just by doing nothing if there's nothing to comply with? If ATF rewrites them, and you comply with the rewrite whatever they are, have you not complied? That's why wording is so important. You cannot have your items licensed & registered if ATF no longer issues tax stamps and accepts form 4s... but you can still be in compliance with ATF regs if the ATF regs no longer require licensing & registration. What if they no longer exist now for plaintiffs? Same question. |
|
I'm going to set the clock at 60 days and then revisit, Lucy has pulled the football away too many times for me to get excited. After the 60 days, I want to see guidance from the ATF/DOJ. No FFL is going to risk it with this amount of ambiguity. |
Just Drop... Buckethead!
|
Originally Posted By Harv24: I'm going to set the clock at 60 days and then revisit, Lucy has pulled the football away too many times for me to get excited. After the 60 days, I want to see guidance from the ATF/DOJ. No FFL is going to risk it with this amount of ambiguity. ^^^ I agree with waiting until something is definite, and in writing. |
 Is The NFA Dead Now? We Ask A 2nd Amendment Lawyer & Answer Your Questions! |
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
|
Originally Posted By NotIssued: Yep. My Form 4 was under 72 hrs Originally Posted By NotIssued: Originally Posted By Aphex: Silver lining: Lower wait times.  Yep. My Form 4 was under 72 hrs What happens if the feds do away with the bureaucrat who approves the form 4's and you can no longer get approval yet state law requires it? |
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
|
Originally Posted By 9divdoc: What happens if the feds do away with the bureaucrat who approves the form 4's and you can no longer get approval yet state law requires it? Originally Posted By 9divdoc: Originally Posted By NotIssued: Originally Posted By Aphex: Silver lining: Lower wait times. Yep. My Form 4 was under 72 hrs What happens if the feds do away with the bureaucrat who approves the form 4's and you can no longer get approval yet state law requires it? "(c) Any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872." If there are no licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872, then you've met the requirements. That's the thing. |
|
Originally Posted By TheRX7Project: "(c) Any person who has complied with the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872." If there are no licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872, then you've met the requirements. That's the thing. If you are a plaintiff, the injunction actually enjoins ATF from enforcing 26 USC 5801 to 5872 on you now. Processing your form 1 or form 4 and issuing you a stamp is enforcement. They cannot do that legally. They wouldn't know unless you told them, but that doesn't alter the legal issue. So if you are not a plaintiff, forms 1 & 4 are still legal. If you are a plaintiff, you are double fucked. You can't comply with 941.28 because you cannot comply with 26 USC 5801 to 5872 as written and enjoined. If you conceal the fact that you are a plaintiff, what law did you break by doing that? |
|
Originally Posted By 9divdoc: WI won't let you buy a gun without a background check based on a current concealed carry permit either And that is bunch of crap. But WI doesn't have gun groups with the cajones to challenge it. Kaul claims WI will issue a concealed carry license to someone under indictment for any disqualifying crime for gun possession under fed law, but is not yet convicted. Federal law says different, you are a prohibited person while under indictment for a disqualifying offense. Thus the feds revoked the Brady status of WI when Kaul claimed WI will issue such licenses to federally prohibited persons. But such a person is either in jail (where CCW isn't allowed very often  ), or out on bail. Two points... First, On the CCW license application and renewal form, there are lists of questions like on a 4473. One of them is "Are you currently under indictment for a felony?" If you answer yes, he's claiming you will not be disqualified and you can and will get your license. If that's true, then why is that question even in the list of disqualifying questions if it matters not? Every other question can disqualify you with the wrong answer. I'd like to see the stats on that...how many people indicted got one, and how many were denied. Second. Being under indictment for a disqualifying offense makes you a prohibited person under federal law. Kaul should know this. But yet he claims WI DOJ would knowingly issue a CCW license to a federally prohibited person. Bullshit. The "out" he used is a licensed weapon is not necessarily a firerarm. A stun gun or a billy club is covered under CCW statute also. But that same license still does authorize carrying a firearm under WI law, there are no seperate licenses, that say "stun guns are OK, but Glocks are not". He is still issuing a license to carry a firearm to someone who is prohibited from possessing one by federal law.... or so he claims.  Where was the anti gun media on this one? Why didn't the news headlines say "WI AG Kaul will issue license to carry concealed guns to people who cannot legally own them under federal law".  |
| Not in the NFA vein, but when did WI start making you fill out a separate form from the 4473 when you buy a handgun? I haven't purchased a handgun in awhile but a couple weeks ago I felt it necessary to get a .357 back into inventory as I have a metric crap ton of .38 Spl. and .357 on hand and nothing to convert it into empty brass. Anywho, Fleet had one and when they gave me a separate State form to fill out, it kinda puzzled me. How long has this been going on? |
Joined:
Aug 2023
Posts:
405
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
Originally Posted By kapusta: Not in the NFA vein, but when did WI start making you fill out a separate form from the 4473 when you buy a handgun? I haven't purchased a handgun in awhile but a couple weeks ago I felt it necessary to get a .357 back into inventory as I have a metric crap ton of .38 Spl. and .357 on hand and nothing to convert it into empty brass. Anywho, Fleet had one and when they gave me a separate State form to fill out, it kinda puzzled me. How long has this been going on? As far as I can recall, WIsconsin State Police have been performing their own handgun checks since the ATF began using the NICS system. The ATF allowed states to have their gun purchase checks performed by the feds or they could opt out and do the checks themselves. Gary |
|
Originally Posted By kapusta: Not in the NFA vein, but when did WI start making you fill out a separate form from the 4473 when you buy a handgun? I haven't purchased a handgun in awhile but a couple weeks ago I felt it necessary to get a .357 back into inventory as I have a metric crap ton of .38 Spl. and .357 on hand and nothing to convert it into empty brass. Anywho, Fleet had one and when they gave me a separate State form to fill out, it kinda puzzled me. How long has this been going on? Quick answer, 1998. In researching this, I found some really weird shit that is dead wrong. Here's an example... from https://www.stateregstoday.com/politics/gun-control/firearm-purchasing-regulations-in-wisconsin 2. Waiting periods: There is no waiting period for purchasing firearms in Wisconsin, except for handgun purchases from private sellers. In these cases, there is a 48-hour waiting period. Additionally, Wisconsin has a voluntary 48-hour waiting period for handgun purchases from unlicensed sellers, also known as the “cooling-off” period. During this time, the purchaser must notify local law enforcement of their intent to purchase and submit to a background check. After 48 hours have passed, the individual may proceed with the purchase if they pass the background check. And finally - 7. Assault weapons ban: Wisconsin does not have an assault weapons ban in place; however, Milwaukee County has its own ban on certain types of weapons. What? And more garbage from this site - https://thegunzone.com/how-to-buy-a-gun-in-wisconsin/ Buying a gun in Wisconsin is a process governed by both federal and state laws, primarily focused on ensuring firearms don’t fall into the wrong hands. While Wisconsin allows for the private sale of long guns (rifles and shotguns) without a background check, handguns purchased from licensed dealers require a federal background check and waiting period, unless the buyer possesses a valid Wisconsin Concealed Carry License (CCL). Handgun Restrictions: Remember that private sales of handguns are subject to stricter regulations and generally avoided due to the complexities of federal laws regarding interstate sales. It’s typically best to purchase handguns through licensed dealers to ensure compliance. |
| According to that "State Regs Today" piece, you need proof of a safety course to buy a handgun? Where do they get this crap. I can't find any mention of an additional State form for handgun purchases though. I wish I looked it over closer for a form number. I asked the clerk what it was for and he just said some new form from the State. Just strange. I wonder if Fleet Farm could have come up with their own CYA form? |
|
According to that "State Regs Today" piece, you need proof of a safety course to buy a handgun? Where do they get this crap. I can't find any mention of an additional State form for handgun purchases though. I wish I looked it over closer for a form number. I asked the clerk what it was for and he just said some new form from the State. Just strange. I wonder if Fleet Farm could have come up with their own CYA form? I think I'll just send a note to the DOJ and see what's the deal. |
| Critical update in OP. |
Scepticism is an exercise, not a life; it is a discipline fit to purify the mind of prejudice and render it all the more apt, when the time comes, to believe and to act wisely. -- George Santayana
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
Never mistake a clear view for a short distance.
|
Originally Posted By kapusta: According to that "State Regs Today" piece, you need proof of a safety course to buy a handgun? Where do they get this crap. I can't find any mention of an additional State form for handgun purchases though. I wish I looked it over closer for a form number. I asked the clerk what it was for and he just said some new form from the State. Just strange. I wonder if Fleet Farm could have come up with their own CYA form? I think I'll just send a note to the DOJ and see what's the deal. Just to close this out, here's what the DOJ had to say: The form has been a requirement ever since the WI Department of Justice Firearms Unit started on December 1st 1991 after passage of 1991 Wisconsin Act 11 that created WI Statute 175.35. In the statue the DOJ was tasked with developing and promulgating a form to facilitate the statutory required background check for handgun purchases in the state. Hope this helps! Firearms Unit Staff I thought the NICS check did this. Oh well.... |
| that way they hit you up for the CCW license fee and the background check fee...additional tax |
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
| I have a question about the kiosk from SS. Do they offer form 1 services for sbr as well as suppressors? If so, do they give you an electronic copy of the prints? I guess it would put you in the system for form 4 purchases as well. |
World ain't what it seems, is it Gunny?
|
Originally Posted By kapusta: Just to close this out, here's what the DOJ had to say: The form has been a requirement ever since the WI Department of Justice Firearms Unit started on December 1st 1991 after passage of 1991 Wisconsin Act 11 that created WI Statute 175.35. In the statue the DOJ was tasked with developing and promulgating a form to facilitate the statutory required background check for handgun purchases in the state. Hope this helps! Firearms Unit Staff I thought the NICS check did this. Oh well.... I've filled out 2 4473 type forms on every handgun purchase in WI since I moved here in 1991. But I didn't buy my first one until early 2000s. I've bought quite a few since, and as far as I can recall, there was a state form and a federal form on each one. |
|
I watched an interesting video last night on Four Boxes Diner on You Tube. Mark Smith interviews Stephan Halbrook, a well known and respected gun law expert. Very interesting what he says about state laws on suppressors effected by the NFA ruling. The entire video is about 44 minutes long, and worth watching the whole thing. But what he says beginning at the 22:20 minute mark, he thinks you are GTG in states like ours that doesn't specifically call for "registration with ATF", but instead say "in compliance with Federal laws", like WI law does. He says under the injunction, plaintiffs in these states ARE in fact, complying with federal NFA law to buy a suppressor without a form 4. It is still covered under GCA 68 like any other firearm. He says there are 4 types of state laws. Those that ban them outright, those that require "federal registration", those that require "compliance with federal law" (us in WI), and those "free" states where state laws are silent on suppressors.  The first two - no go. The last two - GTG. Most other places say three are just 3 types. But what he says means there are 4, because requiring registration & requiring compliance are not the same thing. He doesn't write the laws, but gives expert opinions on them, and he was even quoted by the judge in this NFA ruling. His opinion on the situation for WI is a very good sign. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXv_YIKDzMw&t=212s |
|
Originally Posted By rfb45colt: I watched an interesting video last night on Four Boxes Diner on You Tube. Mark Smith interviews Stephan Halbrook, a well known and respected gun law expert. Very interesting what he says about state laws on suppressors effected by the NFA ruling. The entire video is about 44 minutes long, and worth watching the whole thing. But what he says beginning at the 22:20 minute mark, he thinks you are GTG in states like ours that doesn't specifically call for "registration with ATF", but instead say "in compliance with Federal laws", like WI law does. He says under the injunction, plaintiffs in these states ARE in fact, complying with federal law to buy a suppressor without a form 4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXv_YIKDzMw&t=212s Good point hopefully Kaul doesn't play "Little Dutch Boy" with it... |
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
|
Originally Posted By 9divdoc: Good point hopefully Kaul doesn't play "Little Dutch Boy" with it... if ATF rewrites the rules so this injunction goes nationwide and includes everyone, not just plaintiffs, would be even better. If the licensing & registration laws are rewritten to "do nothing", there's no way in hell we are non compliant with that. WI law specifically states in compliance with 26 USC 5801 to 5872. If ATF changes anything, it will be changed in those rules. So we would be in full compliance with exactly what WI law specifies we must, without a shadow of a doubt. I don't see how even Kaul could win that fight. |
|
Originally Posted By rfb45colt: I watched an interesting video last night on Four Boxes Diner on You Tube. Mark Smith interviews Stephan Halbrook, a well known and respected gun law expert. Very interesting what he says about state laws on suppressors effected by the NFA ruling. The entire video is about 44 minutes long, and worth watching the whole thing. But what he says beginning at the 22:20 minute mark, he thinks you are GTG in states like ours that doesn't specifically call for "registration with ATF", but instead say "in compliance with Federal laws", like WI law does. He says under the injunction, plaintiffs in these states ARE in fact, complying with federal NFA law to buy a suppressor without a form 4. It is still covered under GCA 68 like any other firearm. He says there are 4 types of state laws. Those that ban them outright, those that require "federal registration", those that require "compliance with federal law" (us in WI), and those "free" states where state laws are silent on suppressors. The first two - no go. The last two - GTG. Most other places say three are just 3 types. But what he says means there are 4, because requiring registration & requiring compliance are not the same thing. He doesn't write the laws, but gives expert opinions on them, and he was even quoted by the judge in this NFA ruling. His opinion on the situation for WI is a very good sign. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXv_YIKDzMw&t=212s Makes sense, and that's kind of what I thought from the getgo, but I'm no lawyer. That said. If theres no WI FFL willing to do the transfer it doesnt matter anyway. |
|
Originally Posted By Stonia: Makes sense, and that's kind of what I thought from the getgo, but I'm no lawyer. That said. If theres no WI FFL willing to do the transfer it doesnt matter anyway. Would a suppressor manufacturer sell to an FFL who did not have a Class 3 license in WI |
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
|
I read the law for WI multiple times, and the referring federal ones, and it looked to me that if the form4 and form1 requirements are dropped, we would be good to go here. IANAL, and kind of retarded so take that for what you will.
|
World ain't what it seems, is it Gunny?
|
Another "spitball"... From the City of Shitcongo, and the 7th circuit (which is ours) comes this case. Ezell vs Chicago. This precedant may or may not apply to the situation here, that's for lawyers. judges and courts to determine. But, the conditions are almost the same as the current situation with the NFA ruling, as it applies to WI residents who are plaintiffs. The only difference is in Ezell, both laws were Chicago laws. In the situation we face, it's state vs fed law, where the state would demand compliance with federal regulations that no longer apply. After the McDonald ruling by SCOTUS in 2010, Chicago did an end around. They required handgun registration that included amongst other things, 1 hour of range instruction by a certified instructor. Then they promptly banned all shooting ranges within Chicago, making it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to comply. The city was sued, and the plaintiff won. The city appealed to the 7th circuit, the judgement stood. "The lesson from Ezell remains simple. Government cannot demand that citizens satisfy a condition, outlaw every practical means of satisfying it and then pretend the right still exists." IOW, government cannot demand you fulfill a condition, then prevent you from doing so. Why might that apply here? If you are a plaintiff in this NFA case, the ATF is now actually legally forbidden, by this injunction, from processing your forms 1 or 4. The ATF is enjoined from enforcing the registration requirements of suppressors, SBR, SBS, AOW on plaintiffs. Obviously they wouldn't know if you didn't tell them. But that doesn't change the legality of it. Can you still voluntarily use a form 4? I don't know. It's still enforcement they are forbidden from doing, whether you agree or not. It ATF rewrites those rules to delete the form 4s requirement for everyone, can any law (state or fed) now demand you fulfill a legal condition that you cannot legally comply with because it no longer is available to you? State law says you must, fed law says no, you cannot... or no, we stopped doing that. 7th circuit already said no to this situation of 'competing' laws, not once but twice. Chicago tried another end around by rezoning to allow shooting ranges in only 2% of the city. The court said "nice try, but no". https://www.ammoland.com/.../ezell-chicago-gun-range-ban/... |
|
I wrote the Tiffany campaign and asked what their stance on this is, and if they were willing to change the laws on the books to reflect the coming realities of no more nfa sbs, sbr, and suppressors. Guess we shall see what the intern that reads it has to say.
|
World ain't what it seems, is it Gunny?
|
Originally Posted By lorazepam: I wrote the Tiffany campaign and asked what their stance on this is, and if they were willing to change the laws on the books to reflect the coming realities of no more nfa sbs, sbr, and suppressors. Guess we shall see what the intern that reads it has to say. Next time I see him in Walmart I'll ask him. |
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse.
|
Originally Posted By lorazepam: I wrote the Tiffany campaign and asked what their stance on this is, and if they were willing to change the laws on the books to reflect the coming realities of no more nfa sbs, sbr, and suppressors. Guess we shall see what the intern that reads it has to say. Tom Tiffany has been my U.S. House Rep, my State Senator, and my State Assembly Rep. He's as pro gun as they come. If he's governor, and it gets down to signing such a law change, I would be shocked if he didn't. If he were still my Senator or Assembly Rep, I'd fully expect him to co-sponsor such a law. So signing it as Guv is a no brainer. As a member of Assembly he was a cosponsor of SB93, aka Act 35, aka WI concealed carry law, https://www.nrapvf.org/articles/20260713/nra-pvf-endorses-and-issues-aplus-rating-to-tom-tiffany-for-wisconsin-governor |
|
Originally Posted By 9divdoc: Next time I see him in Walmart I'll ask him. I met him over 20 years ago, before he ran for any office. He would stop in at the coffee klatch at the local diner from time to time. He always backed concealed carry, long before we had it. He was a cosponsor of the ccw law we live under today. Upstanding guy, and as down to earth as he appears in his commercials. He's leading the charge to delist the wolves too. He's one politician I actually really like for a change. |
| Thanks for the replies to that post folks. I am down here in the corner with a bunch of left leaning folks, and it's impossible to talk politics. I hope we can get the requirements ditched, and have them treated like regular firearms. |
World ain't what it seems, is it Gunny?