ATF Says Suppressor and SBR Guidance Could Arrive Within Weeks

During “The Briefing,” an FFL compliance event hosted by FastBound, several high-ranking officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) attended, including ATF Director Robert Cekada, who answered industry questions.

Most attendees wanted guidance on transfers of suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs). Director Cekada could not give specifics, but he offered hints about what is coming down the pike.

The biggest question is when the ATF will release the guidance. According to Cekada, the rule is not done, but it is close. He highlighted that the ATF is only one stakeholder involved in the new guidance. The other two are the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the White House. AmmoLand sources believe the White House is delaying the guidance’s release. According to the director, he believes the guidance will be released in the next couple of weeks.

 

The goal of the guidance is to cover as many Americans as possible while protecting the gun owners covered by it from future anti-gun administrations.

The ATF will most likely not expand the injunction to a universal level. The guidance will address several big questions and issues. With more than 2.3 million suppressors sold this year, according to former NFA Chief Steve Albro, the need for guidance is immense.

One issue the guidance will address is the transfer of SBRs and SBSs. Currently, although these items are protected under the Silencer Shop Foundation case, an ATF Form 4 is required to transfer them because of the Gun Control Act (GCA) attorney general notification requirement. The guidance will “fix” that carve-out, which seems to imply that SBRs and SBSs can be transferred on a Form 4473 alone.

Cekada was clear that these items, and long guns in general, are not an issue. At the Briefing, Cekada called out groups whose goal is to demonize these guns.

Another issue the guidance will address is interstate travel with covered NFA items. The regulation will cover those situations. Also, 15 states require buyers of some covered items to comply with federal law. According to Cekada, the guidance may address that issue, although ATF Chief Legal Counsel Robert Lieder clarified that the ATF cannot force these states to take the bureau’s advice.

AmmoLand asked Director Cekada about guidance for industry operations inspectors (IOIs) on how to handle dealers they find transferring suppressors on a Form 4473 during an inspection. Cekada was adamant that a federal firearms licensee (FFL) found to be transferring suppressors on a Form 4473 will not be cited for violations. Former NFA Chief Albro later echoed this, saying the ATF’s policy is to presume all suppressors transferred via a Form 4473 were legally transferred.

One interesting topic that was brought up was forced reset triggers (FRTs). Cekada said some FRTs are true FRTs, but some on the market are machine guns, and he declined to name the specific FRTs the ATF thinks might be machine guns. He said the ATF has to look at how the trigger mechanism works but will go by the statutory definition of a machine gun.

Throughout the meeting, the ATF discussed changes to Form 4473. Those changes are still in progress. Things like the “County” box will be eliminated. According to Lieder, the ATF is making changes to the forms to comply with court rulings such as the Supreme Court’s Hemani case, which invalidated the firearms prohibition on marijuana users. The new Form 4473 will not be out until after the holiday season.

Mr. Lieder also covered the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion letter on sales of handguns and handgun ammunition to 18- to 20-year-olds. Lieder says the ATF is working on its systems to allow those transfers. The ATF was not informed that the letter would be issued.

Although the ATF will allow transferring handguns to these young adults, the ATF is likely to keep the age for transferring machine guns and destructive devices at 21. The ATF will release guidance in the coming weeks, according to Lieder.

The ATF will continue working on NFA rules dealing with suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs. He wanted to make it clear they are not working on these rules despite the injunction. The goal of these rules is to backstop the current injunction in case something changes in the future. It is basically trying to future-proof against a future anti-gun administration. During this discussion, someone asked whether the ATF has plans to make the injunction “fairer” to those not covered. Lieder said their goal is to try to make any guidance as fair as possible without exceeding its power.

Mr. Lieder sees the biggest threats to the Second Amendment as private regulations and lawsuits. He highlighted monopolies and duopolies like common carriers and ride-share companies. He highlighted Waymo calling the police on a rider for having a gun. He also pointed to state lawsuits against firearm manufacturers.

Another hot topic was internet sales. According to Lieder, the industry is split. They are still considering comments from the rulemaking process, but he said those transfers are already legal under the law. The roadblock was ID verification, which is no longer an issue.

Another rule was hinted at but not confirmed: changes to “sporting purposes.” Lieder said they have been researching the law and might be reaching out for comments soon. These statements point to the rulemaking process, although nothing was confirmed.

Overall, the ATF answered many questions throughout the day, though some remain.

SAF Wants to Know Why ATF Thinks Rare Breed’s Patent Litigation Is Any Of Its Business.

First came the warning. Then came the admission. Now come the questions.

In August, the Texas Gun Rights Foundation warned that Rare Breed Triggers’ sweeping patent campaign risked turning a hard-won victory over ATF into a government-assisted chokepoint over lawful forced reset trigger technology.

Two weeks later, that concern stopped being theoretical. As we reported on August 31, the Justice Department told a federal court in Texas that ATF has an interest in “limiting the sale and distribution of FRTs.”

DOJ went further. In its August 31 Statement of Interest, the government argued that successful patent injunctions obtained by Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP could support ATF’s public-safety efforts by restricting third-party FRT activity. DOJ told the court that the public-interest factor in the preliminary injunction analysis should weigh heavily in the plaintiffs’ favor.

Different motives. Same injunctions.

Now the Second Amendment Foundation has taken the next logical step.

In a September 23 letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche, SAF asked DOJ to explain the factual and legal basis for ATF’s position, including why the agency claims an interest in limiting FRT distribution and why the federal government is inserting itself into private patent litigation in a way that could favor one marketplace participant over others.

Those questions matter because DOJ has already established the basic premise. ATF sees Rare Breed’s private patent litigation as useful to its own policy objectives. What SAF wants to know is why that should be ATF’s business in the first place.

Continue reading “”

Some more for our friends way south of the border

Colombian President’s Open Carry Is Signal to Narcoterrorists and Citizens Alike

The last time I wrote anything about Colombian President Abelardo De La Espriella was early September, when he ended the decade-long suspension of carry licenses and encouraged residents to legally protect themselves.

Like Mexico, Colombia has pretty restrictive gun laws and a powerful criminal element who ignores them with impunity, while average citizens are largely helpless unless they too are willing to break the law.

Now De La Espriella is sending a message to narcoterrorists and lawful citizens alike. A group calling itself the Conquering Self Defense Forces of the Sierra Nevada has laid siege to the city of Santa Marta, a popular tourist destination home to about 600,000 people. The group had set fire to vehicles and threatened the residents to stay home or else face the consequences.

De La Espriella, in return, sent the military to Santa Marta, where they killed a high-ranking member of organization. The president himself showed up in Santa Marta earlier this week, and spoke to officials and the press while openly carrying a handgun on his hip. The gun-carrying has upset some of De La Espriella’s detractors on the left, and even caught the attention of the New York Times.

The president’s gun display ignited debate across Colombia. In Santa Marta, some praised Mr. De La Espriella for his swift arrival and the strong message he sent to the armed group by deploying troops.

“In the last four years, security was terrible,” keeping tourists away, said Luis Arévalo, 37, who rents tents to beachgoers. “There’s been a change, just one month in, since the Tiger arrived,” he added, using Mr. De La Espriella’s nickname.

“He’s roaring.”

Others in Santa Marta described Mr. De La Espriella’s visit as a publicity stunt. “Everyone says that — pure stunt,” said José Ángel Gutiérrez, a 71-year-old retiree.

… Tiziano Breda, senior analyst for ACLED, said Mr. De La Espriella had set up a confrontation between government forces and the armed group that is the de facto authority in the area, and has ordered similar shutdowns before.

“They are both pushing citizens to abide by their respective rules,” he said. “The armed group says the blockade is continuing until Friday, and the government is encouraging shops and businesses to open already,” he said, adding that this created a real risk of retaliation for civilians who trusted the state and reopened.

Which, frankly, is all the more reason for De La Espriella to encourage Colombians to lawfully arm themselves, and to work with the legislature to reform the country’s gun laws so that it’s easier to do so.

De La Espriella’s decision to open carry isn’t a one off. The Times reports that his administration posted a video of the president in the city of Cali on Thursday, where he once again had a handgun on his hip. If he wants the criminal element to see this as a sign of his strength, great, but it’s far more important to continue to aggressively combat them and restore law and order to cities where these cartels have become the de facto authorities.

In the meantime, De La Espriella should encourage Colombia’s law-abiding citizens to take up arms in self-defense. His open carry is already signaling that, but he should be much more open and explicit about the ability of average, everyday Colombians to protect themselves from the narcoterrorists who want to rule over them with an iron fist.

Flock’s Gunfire Alerts Raise a New Fourth Amendment Question
Gun owners should be paying attention to how police use gunfire microphones in conjunction with license plate cameras.

Flock Safety, the main supplier of the recently controversial roadside cameras that scan passing cars, offers more than automated license plate readers (ALPRs). The company also sells a surveillance bundle of sorts called the “Safe City” subscription. Billed as Flock’s “Most Complete Solution,” the “Safe City” subscription includes the much-discussed ALPRs, along with a live video camera—and a gunfire microphone. Bundling these together risks turning lawful gun owners into criminal suspects based only on proximity.

It is hard to find reliable information about the number of active gunfire microphones in the United States. The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Atlas of Surveillance documents nearly 250 gunshot-detection deployments and purchase plans nationwide, although that includes programs that have since ended. Cities also have deployed firearm detection systems that rely on AI to detect visible firearms on video or combine acoustic and dual-sensor infrared cameras to detect gunshots.

Flock is just one of many suppliers in the global gunshot detection market, which has an estimated total value of $1.5 billion. But the company’s marketing material raises concerns about the technology’s capabilities, which go beyond simply detecting gunfire. In Flock’s own words, a confirmed gunshot “can surface the vehicles seen entering or leaving the area around the time of the sound, using nearby Flock license plate reader cameras.” That statement deserves scrutiny, since it describes a mechanism for turning suspected gunfire into a list of nearby vehicles.

Innocent gun owners could end up on such lists. Suppose a bang recorded by one of these microphones gets classified as gunfire (which it may not actually be, given the possibility of a false positive from a similar noise). That “confirmed event” can trigger an ALPR inquiry that sweeps in drivers who had nothing to do with the noise. In a country where more than 20 million people have carry permits and 29 states do not require them, some of those drivers will be lawfully armed. The proximity of those innocent drivers could be mistaken for evidence that they fired the shot.

This possibility raises two legal concerns for lawful gun owners. First, what justifies stopping a person on one of these lists? Second, is querying the database a search under the Fourth Amendment? Recent cases provide some answers.

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen protects lawful public carry. In the 2024 case United States v. Daniels, which involved the detention of an unarmed man who did not match a 911 caller’s description of armed men, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit noted that no crime was reported. Citing Bruen, the court said it “cannot look with suspicion on citizens presumably exercising their Second Amendment rights in a lawful way.”

Last May in Commonwealth v. Foster, by contrast, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court upheld a stop where police responded within seconds to late-night alerts from a gunfire microphone, found only two people, and observed conduct the court considered evasive. An investigative stop requires reasonable suspicion based on specific facts connecting someone to suspected criminal activity. The risk here is that an alert combined with a plate match could be treated as sufficient for reasonable suspicion even though it only establishes proximity.

A recent case from New Jersey illustrates that risk. Last March, in State v. Carrillo, a state appeals court ordered suppression of evidence (an unlawfully possessed handgun) discovered in a minivan after a traffic stop. The police searched the minivan after obtaining a warrant. But the court held that a gunshot alert and an ALPR hit did not adequately connect the minivan to a shooting the day before. Prosecutors conceded that video supposedly showing muzzle flashes from the minivan at the time of the gunfire actually showed none.

When police look for evidence inside a car, that obviously counts as a search. But is that also true when they query an ALPR database?

Last March in United States v. Porter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held that using a 10-camera ALPR network to locate a known vehicle was not a search. Three months later in Chatrie v. United States, by contrast, the Supreme Court held that obtaining Google’s phone location records to identify people near a crime scene was a search. Roadside camera observations differ from detailed phone location data. But an alert-triggered ALPR query seems closer to the situation in Chatrie.

Defenders of gunshot microphones will say that gunfire on city streets is usually illegal and that responding quickly saves lives and reduces violence. But a federally funded evaluation of the gunfire detector ShotSpotter in Chicago and Kansas City, Missouri found that the microphones, while associated with faster responses and more recovered firearms, did not result in fewer shootings or better clearance rates.

With state legislatures slow to act, city governments have to make their own decisions about how to balance safety with privacy. Short of enacting a total ban on every part of the Flock bundle, city councils should adopt four rules to preserve their constituents’ rights.

First, except in exigent circumstances, police should be required to obtain a warrant, including time and distance limits, before running an alert-triggered ALPR query. Second, no city should link gun detection alerts to ALPR data without first holding a public hearing and a vote. Third, every query should be logged for auditing, and information about uninvolved vehicles should be deleted when it is no longer needed as evidence. Fourth, a stop or search based solely on “alert plus proximity” should not be allowed.

Every city using gunshot detection has a contract renewal or replacement decision coming. Those decisions should include publicly disclosed rules about how the system can be used with ALPRs. Because these technologies can be bundled, these questions matter regardless of which vendor a city chooses. Whether a city is expanding an existing network or considering a replacement, the limits on surveillance should be settled before the next contract is signed.

Keeping the important things prioritized

 KFC Vs Popeyes: Who Has The Healthier Fried Chicken?

Let’s be realistic: Most of us don’t see fried chicken as health food. That said, if you’re trying to make healthier choices, there are some differences between the chicken at KFC versus Popeyes. Two nutritional values you’ll want to pay attention to here are saturated fat and sodium.

Going with the classic bone-in pieces as an example, KFC’s Original Recipe chicken breast will get you around 390 calories with 4 grams of saturated fat. Meanwhile, Popeyes Signature chicken breast is close with 380 calories, but double the saturated fat at 8 grams. The numbers are almost the same for chicken thighs, where KFC has a fractionally higher 4.5 grams of saturated fat, and 8 grams at Popeyes.

Saturated fat is singled out here because it’s linked to high levels of so-called “bad” cholesterol, which is what can lead to clogged arteries. The American Heart Association recommends that saturated fat makes up no more than 6% of your daily calories (around 13 grams per day), so a piece from Popeyes eats up over half of that, and you’ll blow past it with your second piece (and remember, that’s without factoring in any other meals you might eat that day).

As for sodium, both chains eat up most of the Heart Association’s recommended daily intake of 1,500 milligrams: KFC clocks in at 1,190 milligrams in a breast piece. At Popeyes, it depends on whether you get regular (1,048 milligrams a piece) or spicy (1,330 milligrams). Although a small amount of sodium is necessary, excessive sodium is linked to high blood pressure and reduced kidney function.

Other chicken items, and the verdict

Of course, there are other chicken items at KFC and Popeyes: sandwiches are a popular choice, and there’s a clearer distinction here. KFC’s Classic Chicken Sandwich has 650 calories, 35 grams of fat (of which 4.5 grams are saturated); Popeyes’ Classic Chicken Sandwich brings 700 calories, 42 grams of fat and a much-higher 14 grams of saturated fat. It also has 1.5 grams of trans fat, a fat type that can raise bad cholesterol and is considered to be a fat type to avoid.

As a side note, we’re not assessing the chicken here on calorie count alone, since they don’t give useful nutritional information; nutritional values like fat, protein, sodium, sugar, and so forth are more relevant (in the case of fried chicken, sugar is negligible, so it’s irrelevant). Protein is relevant, but both chains have a similar amount per piece.

Dietitians have called out KFC’s well-seasoned breading as a concern due to the sodium it adds to the chicken, but Popeyes uses palm oil for frying, which ups the saturated fat. So although the Colonel is not exactly a health food king, KFC’s chicken is nonetheless a bit healthier than Popeyes, based on the saturated and trans fat content; for sodium, Popeyes is marginally better, but only if you avoid the spicy blend. Of course, if health is a serious concern, grilled chicken would be better, but neither chain offers that, despite reports that KFC occasionally serves it.

Second Shot at the Second Amendment: Could Heller Be Undone by an Errant Qualifier?

Many of us are gearing up with columns previewing the Court’s October term and have highlighted the upcoming arguments over bans on AR-15s and semiautomatic weapons out of the Seventh Circuit in Chicago (Viramontes v. Cook County) and the Second Circuit in New York (Grant v. Higgins).

In a recent column, Professor Rory Little suggests that these cases will strike at what he considers a glaring flaw in the Heller decision that recognized the individual right under the Second Amendment. Professor Little repeats a common claim about Heller that some of us have challenged. I wanted to briefly address that controversy again.The column appeared in Scotusblog, a respected site that offers tracking and commentary on pending Supreme Court cases.  Here is the portion that I wanted to address:

The 2008 Heller decision, which changed precedent to find a Second Amendment right to own handguns for self-defense, was decided 5-4. To me (and others) it is clear that Justice Antonin Scalia had to include various qualifiers in his opinion, or he would have lost one or two of his five votes and Heller would have come out differently.

Part III of the opinion was clearly added to capture, or keep, the narrow but earth-shattering majority, and ought to be viewed as the binding judgement of the court. Specifically, in addition to listing various “longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms” left undisturbed, part III said “we also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. … the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time’” (quoting United States v.Miller, a 1939 precedent upholding bans on machine guns).

I add emphasis on “at the time,” because the Viramontes briefing all but ignores what the court said was this “important limitation.”

As the solicitor general’s brief notes, “the AR-15 rifle was developed in 1956,” and the first semiautomatic rifle of any kind was sold in 1903. Thus, while they may be the “most commonly owned rifle[] in America” today (albeit by less than 10% of all Americans), semi-automatic rifles were undisputedly not in common use “at the time” the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791.

Indeed, as the SG’s brief also explains, it is the modern technological developments in the AR-15 that makes it popular today. (This is also why they are commonly used in mass-shootings.) Rather, the solicitor general’s Viramontes brief subtly changes the language, saying (on page 21) that the proper Second Amendment test is whether AR-15s “are in common use” today (again, my emphasis).

This radically departs from the doctrinal limits that were essential to cementing the Heller result. In his 2025 dissent from denial of certiorari, Kavanaugh (joined by Justice Samuel Alito) adopted this same semantic transfiguration of Heller (changing “were” to “are”) – an error (or strategy) presaged in Kavanaugh’s 2011 Circuit judge dissent when Heller was remanded in 2011.

Many folks will be listening on Dec. 2 to see whether a majority of justices will agree that Heller did not actually mean what it appeared to say.

As others have noted, this is an old saw repeated by many critics of Heller.

Justice Scalia anticipated this argument in the actual Heller decision. He wrote:

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way…Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

As I recently discussed in a column, this issue came up nine years ago when Massachusetts attempted to ban stun guns. The Court issued a per curiam opinion in Caetano v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts that sent back a case to the First Circuit and rejected the logic that they were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment. The Court pointed out that in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), it expressly rejected that argument and held that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” It also rejected two other rationales. (Notably, the Court is considering another stun gun case in Calce v. New York after the Second Circuit failed to heed the warning of the Court).

Notably, a new challenge has been filed in Connecticut over a ban of convertible handguns. It is likely to raise many of these same issues. The Firearm Industry Trade Association filed a lawsuit this week that will be before the district court as the Supreme Court hears arguments on the two pending cases.

I obviously disagree with Professor Little and other experts who raise this claim. There are, of course, good-faith arguments against the Heller decision. Some like Professor Little view that decision as “earth-shattering.” I do not. I still believe the Court was correct in viewing this as an individual right. However, I do not believe that this claim of a glaring and hypocritical contradiction between Heller and later cases is fair or supported. There was no sleight of hand in “changing ‘were’ to ‘are.’”

This really does not come down to a change in verbs. While many hope that packing the Supreme Court will result in an immediate reversal of Heller, it is unlikely to turn on the word “were.”

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”