What Happens With 14-288.8 Compliance? (Page 2 of 2)
|
Originally Posted By FreefallRet: I was mistaken it was Todd Carver or local state rep. 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. ETA: I've been corresponding with him. |
Et quant au repos ? Le Caliphate doit être essuyé de la terre.
|
Originally Posted By FreefallRet: So whats your guess of how long? Jan IMO is too long to wait. Paul thinks he can do it faster based on his experience in Raleigh. Viramontes might (might!) change everything. Regardless, it's not going to be tomorrow or next week or next month. |
Et quant au repos ? Le Caliphate doit être essuyé de la terre.
|
Originally Posted By ODA_564: In my opinion? I'd be formulating a lawsuit with FPC, SAF and any RKBA organization to sue the state (Silencer Shop v ATF took 13 months). Paul thinks he can do it faster based on his experience in Raleigh. Viramontes might (might!) change everything. Regardless, it's not going to be tomorrow or next week or next month. |
|
Recent reply from my NC Senators Office. I have received an update from the Legislative Analysis team. The NC General Assembly does not speak for the NC DOJ. It would be best if you contact the NC DOJ for their opinion on this issue if that is what you are looking for. However, since this is a matter of federal law, only the ATF, the United States Department of Justice, and ultimately the federal judiciary may decide the issue of the application of federal law within the state of North Carolina. In short, any opinion about the application of this federal law from the General Assembly or the NC DOJ does not have any authority. I have attached an article on Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, 2026 WL 2255460 (attached). The scope of this decision is very limited. This decision does not apply to North Carolina, and the applicable federal law remains in full effect therefore the ATF may still require ATF Form 4 for the sale of a coverage weapon such as a silencer. On Aug. 8, 2026, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that most of the National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional, stating that portions of the NFA that no longer collect tax revenue as a result of cuts in last year's One Big Beautiful Bill can no longer be justified as a lawful exercise of Congress's taxing authority. This case was not decided on Second Amendment grounds. The court concluded that the registration requirements and other regulations on items like silencers, short-barrel rifles and short-barrel shotguns that are justified as part of the tax collection process are unconstitutional. (The NFA does not regulate "typical" firearms like handguns, rifles, and shotguns, those weapons are regulated under a separate federal law which was not at issue in this case.) This decision does not change the law in North Carolina for two reasons. First, the scope of this decision is limited, and the decision does not apply to North Carolina and it does not apply to all individuals, only the parties to that case. The court explains the limited scope of its order stating that the issued injunction only applies to the specific plaintiffs and defendants in the case. Specifically, the court held that "In sum, the plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction but only so far as it prohibits the defendants from enforcing the challenged NFA provisions against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers both current and future." There were 14 states listed as plaintiffs and North Carolina was not a plaintiff. (South Carolina was a plaintiff.) Furthermore, the court noted in footnote 21 that "imposing a universal injunction would short-circuit review of similar challenges to the NFA pending in other courts . . . [e]ven if a universal injunction were appropriate, judicial restraint favors allowing the constitutional questions here to percolate through the federal courts." Second, North Carolina G.S. 14-288.8(c)(3) prohibits the possession of "any muffler or silencer for any firearm." However, G.S. 14-288.8(b)(5) provides an exception to this prohibition for "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." I believe there is a reasonable interpretation that this language would require NFA compliance for silencer possession under State law, even if legally acquired under federal law pursuant to the federal injunction. The decision to change this State law is a policy decision for the General Assembly. This summary of the recent decision from the Firearm Industry Trade Association is helpful on this topic and would probably be of interest to you. I hope this information is helpful. |
|
Another letter I am working on. MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the North Carolina General Assembly FROM: NC GOA members DATE: September 2, 2026 RE: Necessary Amendments to North Carolina Firearms Law Following the Silencer Shop Foundation/Jensen Injunction Executive Summary North Carolina law should be amended to recognize the changed federal legal landscape created by the August 5, 2026 decision of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, consolidated with Jensen v. ATF. The federal court held that specified National Firearms Act ("NFA") regulatory provisions governing untaxed firearms exceed Congress's enumerated powers. The court permanently enjoined federal defendants from enforcing those provisions against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers, including current and future members and customers. The court specifically rejected a universal injunction but did not limit the protection of qualifying organizational members to residents of Texas. North Carolina should respond by bringing state law into conformity with this changed federal legal environment. The principal problem is N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-288.8. That statute presently places silencers/suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns within North Carolina's definition of "weapon of mass death and destruction" and generally makes their manufacture, possession, purchase, sale, delivery, and acquisition unlawful unless an exception applies. That state-law framework was developed in an environment in which federal law imposed NFA registration, approval, and taxation requirements on these firearms. The federal legal framework has now materially changed. North Carolina should therefore amend its statutes so that a person who may lawfully possess, acquire, manufacture, or transfer a suppressor, short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun under applicable federal law is not independently prohibited from doing so under North Carolina law solely because the item is classified under the former NFA framework. The Legislature should also eliminate any requirement that North Carolina residents demonstrate federal NFA approval through an ATF Form 1 or Form 4 when federal law no longer lawfully requires that approval. For dealer transfers, the ordinary federal firearm-transfer process including ATF Form 4473 and the applicable NICS background check should remain recognized as the relevant federal transfer procedure where the NFA Form 4 requirement is unenforceable. The objective is not to create a federal-law exemption through state legislation. North Carolina cannot rewrite federal law. The objective is narrower and entirely within the General Assembly's authority: North Carolina should stop imposing an independent state prohibition where federal law no longer supplies the legal basis for that prohibition. I. The Federal Legal Landscape Has Changed On August 5, 2026, the Northern District of Texas held that specified NFA provisions applicable to untaxed firearms exceed Congress's Article I powers. The court reasoned that Congress had eliminated the making and transfer taxes for the relevant firearms and therefore could no longer rely upon the taxing power to sustain the challenged regulatory provisions. The court expressly stated that the challenged NFA provisions are unconstitutional and permanently enjoined the federal defendants from enforcing them against the protected parties. The affected categories most relevant to North Carolina are: silencers and suppressors; short-barreled rifles; and short-barreled shotguns. The federal judgment is not a universal nationwide injunction. The court expressly limited its remedy to the parties and persons falling within the protected relationships identified in the judgment. But the court specifically included organizational members and customers where applicable, including current and future members and customers. That distinction matters for North Carolina. A North Carolina resident who is outside the protected class does not automatically receive the benefit of the federal injunction. But neither does a North Carolina resident automatically lose the benefit of the injunction merely because he or she lives in North Carolina. The operative issue is whether the person falls within the protected class and whether the firearm and federal requirement are within the scope of the judgment. II. North Carolina Law Should Not Continue to Treat These Firearms as Categorically Prohibited North Carolina's existing statute is broader than necessary in light of the changed federal environment. N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-288.8 generally prohibits the manufacture, assembly, possession, storage, transportation, sale, purchase, delivery, or acquisition of a "weapon of mass death and destruction." The statutory definition expressly includes: a shotgun with a barrel under 18 inches; a rifle with a barrel under 16 inches; and a muffler or silencer for a firearm. The statute therefore independently criminalizes conduct involving precisely the categories of firearms most directly affected by the federal court's decision. That creates an unnecessary conflict between federal and state regulatory schemes. If federal law no longer lawfully requires a person protected by the federal judgment to obtain NFA approval before acquiring a covered firearm, North Carolina should not continue to criminalize the same acquisition solely because the firearm historically fell within the NFA. The General Assembly should correct that problem. III. North Carolina Should Recognize Lawful Federal Possession Rather Than Recreate the Federal NFA The Legislature should not attempt to reproduce the federal NFA through state law. If Congress and the federal courts have changed the federal legal status of covered firearms, North Carolina should not substitute a state registration, approval, taxation, or licensing system merely to preserve the former federal regulatory structure. Instead, North Carolina law should use a straightforward rule: A firearm is not unlawful under North Carolina law solely because it is a firearm that was formerly subject to federal NFA regulation, provided that the firearm and the person's conduct are otherwise lawful under applicable federal and North Carolina law. This approach preserves North Carolina's ability to prohibit genuinely unlawful conduct while eliminating the unnecessary state-law prohibition created by 14-288.8. IV. The Legislature Should Specifically Address Suppressors Suppressors present the clearest case for legislative reform. North Carolina currently places firearm silencers within the definition of a "weapon of mass death and destruction." The federal court's decision specifically concerns the NFA's regulation of untaxed firearms, including silencers/suppressors. Accordingly, North Carolina should remove an ordinary suppressor from the definition of a prohibited "weapon of mass death and destruction" when the suppressor is otherwise lawfully possessed under federal and state law. The Legislature should make clear that: lawful possession of a suppressor is not, standing alone, a violation of 14-288.8; lawful acquisition of a suppressor is not, standing alone, a violation of 14-288.8; a North Carolina resident should not be required by state law to obtain federal NFA approval that federal law does not lawfully require; and ordinary federal firearms-transfer requirements remain applicable where applicable. V. The Legislature Should Address Short-Barreled Rifles and Short-Barreled Shotguns The same statutory problem exists with SBRs and SBSs. North Carolina's definition of "weapon of mass death and destruction" currently encompasses rifles with barrels under 16 inches and shotguns with barrels under 18 inches. Those categories are among the firearms directly implicated by the federal court's decision. North Carolina should therefore amend 14-288.8 so that the mere barrel length of an otherwise lawful rifle or shotgun does not independently make the firearm illegal under North Carolina law. The amendment should not eliminate laws concerning unlawful use, possession by prohibited persons, unlawful transfers, or other independently prohibited conduct. Rather, it should eliminate the categorical state prohibition based solely upon the firearm's former NFA classification. VI. Form 4473 Should Be Recognized as the Ordinary Dealer-Transfer Record The Legislature should also understand the difference between the federal forms. Form 4 is the federal NFA application historically used for approval of an NFA firearm transfer. Form 4473 is the federal Firearms Transaction Record used by an FFL when conducting an ordinary firearm transaction. Therefore, the proposed state-law change should not state that Form 4473 legally "replaces" Form 4 in every circumstance. The correct legislative principle is: When federal law no longer requires NFA Form 4 approval for a covered transaction, North Carolina law should not independently require proof of Form 4 approval as a condition of lawful possession or acquisition. Where a covered firearm is transferred through an FFL, the dealer's ordinary federal obligations including Form 4473 and the applicable NICS background check remain applicable. North Carolina should recognize that ordinary federal process rather than create a separate state requirement for an NFA approval document that federal law no longer requires. VII. Form 1 Requires a Separate Legislative Treatment The Legislature should also avoid creating an inaccurate statutory reference to Form 4473 as a replacement for Form 1. Form 1 historically addresses the making of an NFA firearm. Form 4473 addresses a dealer firearm transaction. Those are different federal procedures. Therefore, North Carolina legislation should not require a person manufacturing a firearm to obtain a federal Form 1 merely because North Carolina law historically treated that firearm as an NFA weapon. Instead, the statute should provide that North Carolina law does not independently prohibit the making of a firearm solely because federal NFA law formerly required a Form 1 or similar federal approval, provided the conduct is otherwise lawful under applicable federal and state law. That language is both more accurate and more durable than attempting to write ATF form numbers directly into North Carolina criminal law. VIII. The General Assembly Should Remove the Federal-NFA-Based Exception Structure The current structure of 14-288.8 makes legality depend in part upon whether a person falls within specified exceptions to a broad prohibition. That structure should be reconsidered. North Carolina should not require ordinary citizens to establish that they fall within an exception to a prohibition that is itself based upon the historical federal NFA classification of a firearm. Instead, the statute should begin with the principle that possession of an otherwise lawful firearm is lawful unless a separate North Carolina statute makes the person's particular conduct unlawful. This would place suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs on the same basic statutory footing as other firearms, while preserving criminal penalties for unlawful conduct. IX. Proposed Statutory Amendment The General Assembly should amend N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-288.8 substantially along the following lines: Proposed subsection concerning federally lawful firearms A firearm shall not constitute a weapon of mass death and destruction solely because the firearm is a muffler or silencer, a rifle with a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches, or a shotgun with a barrel or barrels of less than 18 inches in length or an overall length of less than 26 inches, when the firearm is otherwise lawfully possessed, manufactured, transferred, purchased, or acquired under applicable federal and State law. Proposed federal-law conformity provision No person shall be required under this section to obtain, possess, or present proof of a federal National Firearms Act registration, approval, tax payment, Form 1, Form 4, or similar federal authorization as a condition of lawful possession, manufacture, transfer, purchase, or acquisition of a firearm when applicable federal law does not require such authorization. Proposed dealer-transfer provision Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a federally licensed firearms dealer from completing a lawful firearm transaction in accordance with applicable federal law, including completion of the federal Firearms Transaction Record (ATF Form 4473) and any required federal background check. Proposed independent-law safeguard Nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize possession, manufacture, transfer, purchase, acquisition, or use of a firearm by a person prohibited from engaging in such conduct under another provision of State or federal law. These provisions would accomplish the central legislative objective without attempting to dictate federal law to ATF. X. The Legislature Should Not Condition State Law on the Outcome of Future Federal Litigation A significant reason for statutory reform is certainty. The General Assembly should not force North Carolina citizens, dealers, law-enforcement officers, and courts to determine on a transaction-by-transaction basis whether a particular federal injunction applies to a particular person. The current federal judgment itself requires a person-specific analysis because it is not universal. That uncertainty is precisely why state law should be written independently. North Carolina can say: If the conduct is lawful under applicable federal law and no independent North Carolina prohibition applies, the firearm is not unlawful solely because it was historically classified as an NFA firearm. That rule would remain workable even if future federal litigation modifies the scope of the injunction. XI. This Amendment Would Not Eliminate Existing Firearms Laws The proposed amendment should expressly preserve laws concerning: persons prohibited from possessing firearms; unlawful use of firearms; possession during commission of another crime; unlawful transfers; possession of stolen firearms; possession of firearms in prohibited locations; federal firearms-license requirements; federal background-check requirements; and other independent federal or North Carolina restrictions. The purpose is not to eliminate firearms regulation. The purpose is to eliminate a particular category of state prohibition that depends upon the former NFA treatment of suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs. XII. Why Legislative Action Is Necessary The General Assembly should act because leaving 14-288.8 unchanged creates three problems. First, it creates unnecessary uncertainty. A North Carolina resident may be protected from particular federal NFA enforcement by a federal court injunction while simultaneously facing a state criminal prohibition based upon the same firearm. That is an avoidable legal conflict. Second, it preserves a state prohibition that no longer tracks the federal legal rationale. The federal court expressly held that the challenged NFA provisions for untaxed firearms exceed Congress's enumerated powers. North Carolina should not preserve the same regulatory result through a separate state prohibition without an independent state-law justification. Third, it places North Carolina citizens and law-enforcement officers in an unnecessary legal gray area. A citizen should be able to determine from North Carolina law whether possession of a particular firearm is lawful without first determining whether an NFA injunction applies to that particular person. Likewise, North Carolina law-enforcement officers should not be required to determine whether a federal court's party-specific injunction protects an individual before determining whether possession of the firearm itself violates state law. The Legislature can eliminate that uncertainty through clear statutory language. XIII. Recommended Legislative Policy The General Assembly should amend N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-288.8 to accomplish four specific objectives: Remove suppressors from the category of weapons that are categorically prohibited solely because they are suppressors. Remove short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns from the category of weapons that are categorically prohibited solely because of their barrel length. Prohibit North Carolina agencies from requiring proof of federal NFA Form 1 or Form 4 approval when applicable federal law does not require that approval. Recognize ordinary federal dealer-transfer procedures, including ATF Form 4473 and applicable NICS requirements, when a covered firearm is lawfully transferred through an FFL. These amendments should be accompanied by conforming changes to any other North Carolina statute or regulation that independently uses the same NFA classifications to prohibit otherwise lawful possession or transfer. XIV. Conclusion North Carolina law should change because the legal framework upon which portions of the existing state restrictions were historically premised has changed. The federal district court has determined that specified NFA regulatory provisions governing untaxed firearms exceed Congress's enumerated powers and has permanently enjoined their enforcement against the protected parties, including qualifying organizational members and customers. North Carolina is not required to adopt the federal court's judgment as a matter of state law. But neither is North Carolina required to maintain an independent state prohibition that treats the same firearms as categorically unlawful. The General Assembly should therefore amend N.C. Gen. Stat. 14-288.8 and related provisions to provide a clear rule: A suppressor, short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun should not be unlawful under North Carolina law solely because of its historical classification under the National Firearms Act, when the firearm and the person's conduct are otherwise lawful under applicable federal and North Carolina law. For dealer transfers, North Carolina should recognize the ordinary federal firearms transaction process, including ATF Form 4473 and the applicable NICS background check, when federal law does not require NFA Form 4 approval. For the manufacture of a firearm, North Carolina should not independently require Form 1 approval when applicable federal law no longer requires that approval. The legislation should not attempt to dictate federal law or determine the ultimate scope of the federal injunction. Instead, it should ensure that North Carolina law remains clear, internally consistent, and independent of federal NFA requirements that may no longer be enforceable. The appropriate legislative response is therefore not to wait for additional federal litigation to determine, case by case, whether North Carolina citizens may lawfully possess these firearms. The General Assembly should amend North Carolina law now so that state law does not independently criminalize conduct that is otherwise lawful under applicable federal law, and so that North Carolina's statutes accurately reflect the changed legal status of suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs. This version makes the requested legislative change much more explicit while avoiding the legally vulnerable claim that North Carolina can simply declare "Form 4473 replaces Form 1 and Form 4." The federal court's actual order is narrower than that, and the current North Carolina statute is broad enough that a carefully drafted amendment is preferable to simply deleting one reference to the NFA. I am also treating the cited court decision and North Carolina statutes as third-party legal sources, not as an endorsement or recommendation concerning a political position. |