What Happens With 14-288.8 Compliance? (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 8/11/2026 11:24:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: REAPER2502][Edited]
|
This is something everyone needs to be aware of. 14-288.8 deals with possession of SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors. They are legal because 14-288.8(b)(5) permits ownership in compliance with 26 USC Chapter 53, parts 5801-5871. What happens if those are found unconstitutional and done away with? Then there is no federal law to comply with in order to permit ownership. It then becomes impossible to comply with the law. If the legislature doesnt "clean up" the NCGS, they would technically become illegal. |
|
Yes, I am following this closely but what I have been reading is that your previously registered items will be considered legal so don’t discard your paperwork. If it does go away I certainly wouldn’t be the asshole that refused to show my papers because “it’s a tax and you ain’t the IRS dumdums.” |
|
I wouldn't exactly call the General Assembly "pro 2A", but I would hope they would "clean up" the statute as soon as possible. If I am not mistaken, they have gone home from the summer. I doubt they would reconvene just to address this. Nest question would be, how do we proceed between now and then? |
|
Originally Posted By BULLDAWG_556: Yes, I am following this closely but what I have been reading is that your previously registered items will be considered legal so don’t discard your paperwork. This would make sense. They were originally obtained correctly, so in essence, they would be grandfathered. |
| As of today by following federal law and not doing paperwork (form 4) means I am in compliance with the NC statute. |
RIP MSgt Adam F. "Benji" Benjamin (EOD) KIA Helmand Prov 18 Aug 2009 Semper Fi bro' and save me a seat.
NC CCH Instructor
NRA pistol, rifle and shotgun Instructor
NC CCH Instructor
NRA pistol, rifle and shotgun Instructor
|
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171: As of today by following federal law and not doing paperwork (form 4) means I am in compliance with the NC statute. Pretty big risk youre running. NC DOJ will have to address this fairly quick and hopefully they just go with "if a person can legally own a pistol/shotgun/rifle then they can own a suppressor/SBS/SBR" |
|
Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Pretty big risk youre running. NC DOJ will have to address this fairly quick and hopefully they just go with "if a person can legally own a pistol/shotgun/rifle then they can own a suppressor/SBS/SBR" Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Originally Posted By Jeremy2171: As of today by following federal law and not doing paperwork (form 4) means I am in compliance with the NC statute. Pretty big risk youre running. NC DOJ will have to address this fairly quick and hopefully they just go with "if a person can legally own a pistol/shotgun/rifle then they can own a suppressor/SBS/SBR" It says follow FED law is what you need to have them legally in NC. |
RIP MSgt Adam F. "Benji" Benjamin (EOD) KIA Helmand Prov 18 Aug 2009 Semper Fi bro' and save me a seat.
NC CCH Instructor
NRA pistol, rifle and shotgun Instructor
NC CCH Instructor
NRA pistol, rifle and shotgun Instructor
|
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171: What is it in NC law that needs to be addressed? It says follow FED law is what you need to have them legally in NC. Originally Posted By Jeremy2171: Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Originally Posted By Jeremy2171: As of today by following federal law and not doing paperwork (form 4) means I am in compliance with the NC statute. Pretty big risk youre running. NC DOJ will have to address this fairly quick and hopefully they just go with "if a person can legally own a pistol/shotgun/rifle then they can own a suppressor/SBS/SBR" It says follow FED law is what you need to have them legally in NC. I'm sure discussions are being had in the DOJ today |
|
Originally Posted By jafrush: Agree, but I can also see the argument the other direction. Personally I read it it like you are, but I'm biased. I'm sure discussions are being had in the DOJ today Originally Posted By jafrush: Originally Posted By Jeremy2171: Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Originally Posted By Jeremy2171: As of today by following federal law and not doing paperwork (form 4) means I am in compliance with the NC statute. Pretty big risk youre running. NC DOJ will have to address this fairly quick and hopefully they just go with "if a person can legally own a pistol/shotgun/rifle then they can own a suppressor/SBS/SBR" It says follow FED law is what you need to have them legally in NC. I'm sure discussions are being had in the DOJ today Can you explain to me the angle that you can see from the other direction? Trying to wrap my head around both sides...what am I missing? |
RIP MSgt Adam F. "Benji" Benjamin (EOD) KIA Helmand Prov 18 Aug 2009 Semper Fi bro' and save me a seat.
NC CCH Instructor
NRA pistol, rifle and shotgun Instructor
NC CCH Instructor
NRA pistol, rifle and shotgun Instructor
|
Originally Posted By jafrush: That's my thought as well   Originally Posted By jafrush: Originally Posted By Jeremy2171: As of today by following federal law and not doing paperwork (form 4) means I am in compliance with the NC statute. So homebuilt is still not legal as per state law. |
|
NC AG is Democrat Jeff Jackson who is a current member of the Army NG as a Major. What are Jeff Jackson's specific gun safety proposals in North Carolina? Jeff Jackson proposed banning bump stocks, expanding background checks to include assault-style rifles, raising the age to buy assault-style weapons to 21, increasing funding for school psychologists and counselors, and allowing courts to temporarily remove guns from anyone deemed a risk I wouldn't hold my breath on help from this guy. |
|
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171: * not arguing* Can you explain to me the angle that you can see from the other direction? Trying to wrap my head around both sides...what am I missing? Its a giant cluster right now. Per the statute, owning a suppressor, sbr, sbs, etc is illegal in the state. There are exemptions in the statute so you have to meet one of those. Will this change now mean that you have to meet some other exemption? No one knows right now. The easy button will be for the state to say that if you can legally own a firearm you can have a SBS/SBR/suppressor but we're talking about the state. |
|
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171: * not arguing* Can you explain to me the angle that you can see from the other direction? Trying to wrap my head around both sides...what am I missing? "This section does not apply to any of the following: SNIP 1-4 (5) Persons who lawfully possess or own a weapon as defined in subsection (c) of this section in compliance with 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, 5801-5871" The court just said compliance with 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, 5801-5871 is no longer necessary to the winning plaintiff groups. So being a member of one of the groups and not having to comply with 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, 5801-5871 could be construed to technically mean at the state level that you are NOT complying with 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, 5801-5871, and therefore in violation of 14-288.8. The alternative view, and I think what you and I both are voicing (and this is a snippet I pulled from a post elsewhere, supposedly by a lawyer) - the ruling says plaintiffs are no longer required to register the NFA items, then the state law requiring compliance with the NFA should not be deemed violated by those otherwise lawfully possessing those firearms without registration, because they are technically within compliance under the new ruling. By no longer being required to comply, you are still in effect complying because you are in lawful compliance, and therefore still in compliance with state law. It is a chicken/egg sort of situation at the moment for sure. And no, I'm not a lawyer and that's not legal advice. Originally Posted By FreefallRet: As of today dealers are still doing form 4s etc. So homebuilt is still not legal as per state law. |
|
Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Its a giant cluster right now. Per the statute, owning a suppressor, sbr, sbs, etc is illegal in the state. There are exemptions in the statute so you have to meet one of those. Will this change now mean that you have to meet some other exemption? No one knows right now. The easy button will be for the state to say that if you can legally own a firearm you can have a SBS/SBR/suppressor but we're talking about the state. Originally Posted By NCPatrolAR: Originally Posted By Jeremy2171: * not arguing* Can you explain to me the angle that you can see from the other direction? Trying to wrap my head around both sides...what am I missing? Its a giant cluster right now. Per the statute, owning a suppressor, sbr, sbs, etc is illegal in the state. There are exemptions in the statute so you have to meet one of those. Will this change now mean that you have to meet some other exemption? No one knows right now. The easy button will be for the state to say that if you can legally own a firearm you can have a SBS/SBR/suppressor but we're talking about the state. "This section does not apply to any of the following: SNIP 1-4 (5) Persons who lawfully possess or own a weapon as defined in subsection (c) of this section in compliance with 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, 5801-5871 If you own a weapon as defined as a WMD and you are in compliance with 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, 5801-5871....then you can legally own a suppressor/SBR/SBS as a "regular" firearm WITHOUT registration/taxation. NC GS simply says we follow 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, 5801-5871 and that's it. Its not like other states that require "permits or permission" etc. I'm not a lawyer but in plain english it says if you follow FED law then we (NC) recognize the FED law authority on this topic. |
RIP MSgt Adam F. "Benji" Benjamin (EOD) KIA Helmand Prov 18 Aug 2009 Semper Fi bro' and save me a seat.
NC CCH Instructor
NRA pistol, rifle and shotgun Instructor
NC CCH Instructor
NRA pistol, rifle and shotgun Instructor
|
Originally Posted By jafrush: So the NC statute says: The alternative view, and I think what you and I both are voicing (and this is a snippet I pulled from a post elsewhere, supposedly by a lawyer) - the ruling says plaintiffs are no longer required to register the NFA items, then the state law requiring compliance with the NFA should not be deemed violated by those otherwise lawfully possessing those firearms without registration, because they are technically within compliance under the new ruling. By no longer being required to comply, you are still in effect complying because you are in lawful compliance, and therefore still in compliance with state law. It is a chicken/egg sort of situation at the moment for sure. And no, I'm not a lawyer and that's not legal advice. Dealers are obviously playing it safe, as they should. Just because dealers are playing it safe doesn't mean anything. There's too much ambiguity to say one way or another for sure, which is why they're playing it safe. USC CH 53 says "x" items are no longer registered. They are just "regular" firearms now. I AM still following FED law... my MGs and DDs are still registered but my Suppressor/SBR/SBS are now title 1 firearms and subject only to the NICS check and now fall under long established "firearms" laws. i.e. NICS from dealer..private sales no paperwork...etc.. STILL have to be 21 to possess by FED law etc. |
RIP MSgt Adam F. "Benji" Benjamin (EOD) KIA Helmand Prov 18 Aug 2009 Semper Fi bro' and save me a seat.
NC CCH Instructor
NRA pistol, rifle and shotgun Instructor
NC CCH Instructor
NRA pistol, rifle and shotgun Instructor
|
I agree that one cannot comply with a law which may or may not technically exist. However, even PSA is still selling on Form 4 in NC. As a law enforcement officer, I am moving with trepidation regarding the recent rulings. I know how I interpret the law, but that doesnt mean everyone else interprets it the same. I am not willing to be the test case in NC. I have patience enough to wait and see how things turn out. Given the simplicity of eFile riggt now, seems a small price to pay to ensure I stay solvent. As many have said, it is literally, going to take a session of the General Assembly to fully sort the law and clarify. And let's face it......how long has it taken those idiots just to pass a budget? |
|
Originally Posted By REAPER2502: I agree that one cannot comply with a law which may or may not technically exist. However, even PSA is still selling on Form 4 in NC. As a law enforcement officer, I am moving with trepidation regarding the recent rulings. I know how I interpret the law, but that doesnt mean everyone else interprets it the same. I am not willing to be the test case in NC. I have patience enough to wait and see how things turn out. Given the simplicity of eFile riggt now, seems a small price to pay to ensure I stay solvent. As many have said, it is literally, going to take a session of the General Assembly to fully sort the law and clarify. And let's face it......how long has it taken those idiots just to pass a budget? |
|
He emailed me back within like 2 hours. Attached File |
|
Originally Posted By jafrush: That's my thought as well Originally Posted By jafrush: Originally Posted By Jeremy2171: As of today by following federal law and not doing paperwork (form 4) means I am in compliance with the NC statute. Me two the state can't require you to follow a law that doesn't exist or was ruled unconstutitional |
|
There is also this section of 14-288.8 (4) Inventors, designers, ordnance consultants and researchers, chemists, physicists, and other persons lawfully engaged in pursuits designed to enlarge knowledge or to facilitate the creation, development, or manufacture of weapons of mass death and destruction intended for use in a manner consistent with the laws of the United States and the State of North Carolina. |
|
Originally Posted By JosephTurrisi: There is also this section of 14-288.8 (4) Inventors, designers, ordnance consultants and researchers, chemists, physicists, and other persons lawfully engaged in pursuits designed to enlarge knowledge or to facilitate the creation, development, or manufacture of weapons of mass death and destruction intended for use in a manner consistent with the laws of the United States and the State of North Carolina.
|
|
Originally Posted By FreefallRet: Well lawmakers are still quiet in NC. Might be time to drive to the AGs office and ask WTF is going on. The AG is still huddled with his "consultants" and "advisors" within the Democratic party sphere figuring out a way to keep suppressors/SBR/SBS from being handed out like candy. Harking back to the Mike Easley days, the AG office and it's minions haven't been firearm friendly and often sought to make CCH and other 'pro-gun' laws as difficult to implement and stay leagl as possible. And that's when they weren't actively trying to subvert them. |
There's nothing wrong with a little personal baggage, it's owning the whole luggage store that's the problem.
|
I think its safe to say this is going to turn into a mess. Look at how Constitutional Carry is stalled out. As I said earlier, the clowns in the General Assembly just recently finally passed a budget. These idiots will likely lose control of the General Assembly and hand the state over to the Democrats. |
|
Bear in mind that the injunction in Silencer Shop v ATF and Jensen v ATF provides relief only to members (present and future) of the named organizational plaintiffs (GOA, FPCAF, SAF, CCRKBA,TSRA). And customers, past and future, of Silencer Shop, PSA, and Hot Shots Customs, LLC. It's not universal. You need to be a member of one or more these organizations to be afforded relief as things shake out. |
Et quant au repos ? Le Caliphate doit être essuyé de la terre.
|
Originally Posted By JosephTurrisi: The AG is not going to reply to any of you. Their way of thinking is that they advise law enforcement only Originally Posted By REAPER2502: ncleg.gov/findyourlegislators Look up your legislator. Send them an email. The only way this will change is if you let them know it needs revised. |
Et quant au repos ? Le Caliphate doit être essuyé de la terre.
|
Originally Posted By FreefallRet: Well my congressman called and asked me to call him tomorrow to discuss the recent Nc form 4 law BS. |
Et quant au repos ? Le Caliphate doit être essuyé de la terre.
|
Originally Posted By jerrmy: Are you holding their family members hostage or something? I have NEVER gotten a call back  Stop voting for sorry people. I had to call my current NC rep because my county was trying to charge me property tax for the family cemetery which under state law is tax free. I called his office around 8 am and later that day I received a call back from a staff member that he was looking into it. At 5:45 pm that same day I got a call from the tax assessor who was not happy telling me it was taken care of. I found out that my Rep. called the county chairman who then called the tax assessor who then called me after hours. While I will never know what was said it is apparent that someone got chewed out and that crap does run downhill. My Rep. before him actually came to my property and intervened in a property problem with the DOT which resulted in them redesigning my driveway to be safe and passable year-round instead of the 24 percent grade, ski slope they were trying to stick me with. I ended up with a 1/4-mile-long drive with a max grade of 14 precent that has 7 inches of pavement. |
|
Originally Posted By ODA_564: Your US Congressional representative? Not sure how that helps with NC law. He called me on my cell phone and we talked for a bit. How about we figure out a good strategy to fight this shit vs talking about what won't help. What is GRNC doing? Not seen anything on their webpage. https://grnc.org/wp/ I just called GRNC and left a message, so we will see what's going on. |