BREAKING: Huge News for Gun Owners As DOJ and ATF Release Guidance and FAQ for NFA Items

The Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives have released the long-awaited guidance for gun owners and firearm industry members in response to the federal injunction on NFA registration requirements for suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and “Any Other Weapons.” While the scope of the injunction imposed by U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix applies only to the plaintiffs (along with their members and customers) in the Jensen and Silencer Shop cases, the guidance released by the ATF on Friday applies “to everyone, and not only to those covered by the injunction.”

A FAQ released by the DOJ and ATF explicitly lays out the changes that are now in effect.

For various policy reasons, ATF will cease enforcement on October 9, 2026, of the following NFA provisions as applied only to short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and “any other weapon[s]” as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e):

• The requirement to apply and obtain prior approval to make NFA firearms
• The requirement of those engaged in the business to register NFA firearms within 24 hours of making
• The requirement to apply and obtain prior approval to transfer NFA firearms
• The requirement to register a firearm in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
• The various prohibitions on making, receiving, transferring, and possessing unregistered NFA firearms, other than the prohibitions in 26 U.S.C. § 5861(h), (k) (prohibiting possession of firearms with obliterated serial numbers or those illegally imported)
• The prohibition against transporting unregistered NFA firearms in interstate commerce (26 U.S.C. § 5861(j))
• The NFA requirement to mark all NFA firearms
• Any other NFA provision specifically enjoined by the district court’s judgment

This nonenforcement only extends to firearms on which Congress eliminated the making and transfer taxes. Among other policy reasons, this nonenforcement policy is designed to eliminate the inequity and disuniformity created by the district court’s injunction, which is limited only to certain parties.

A press release from the ATF details how purchasing these items will work going forward, at least at the federal level.

“The direction from the President, Congress, and the courts is clear,” said ATF Director Rob Cekada. “ATF is now following suit with our enforcement posture while continuing to ensure we remain focused where we are needed the most: combatting violent crime in American communities.”

Under ATF’s guidance, ATF will not enforce the requirements for individuals to apply and receive ATF approval before making or transferring short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors (silencers), and certain other concealable firearms known in the law as “any other weapons.” ATF also will not enforce the NFA’s registration, tax-stamp or related requirements for those covered items. The $200 tax remains in place for machine guns and destructive devices. The NFA requirements apply in full to those weapons.

The guidance does not supersede state and local laws that restrict NFA firearms. Because many state laws require individuals to register NFA firearms, ATF will continue to process NFA applications that are submitted. The guidance also does not affect the Gun Control Act’s requirement to obtain ATF approval before transporting short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns in interstate commerce.  Individuals may obtain that approval by filing a Form 20, whether or not the item is registered under the NFA.

Under the guidance, licensed dealers must still complete Form 4473s, run NICS background checks, keep records, and follow all other Gun Control Act requirements.  Those engaged in the business are required to pay any special occupational tax.  Individuals must also continue to comply with state law, which may be more restrictive.

That bit about the guidance not superseding state and local laws is important. Some states impose outright bans on NFA items, and those remain in effect. Other states still require registration of NFA items, as the ATF notes.

The press release and the FAQ do appear to be at odds on transporting short-barreled rifles in interstate commerce. The press release indicates that ATF approval is still required to transport these items in interstate commerce, while the The DOJ/ATF FAQ seems to say something different.

The National Firearms Act also makes it unlawful for any person “to transport, deliver, or receive any firearm in interstate commerce which has not been registered as required” by the NFA. 26 U.S.C. § 5861(j). One part of the district court’s opinion recites that this provision was not challenged by the plaintiffs. A different part of the district court’s opinion suggests that the NFA registration provisions are unconstitutional as applied to intrastate and interstate activities.

The Department recognizes that application of § 5861(j) would make it difficult to sell or transport unregistered $0-tax NFA items for purposes within the scope of the injunction (e.g., shipping between dealers or sending an item to a manufacturer for repair). Nor could individuals transport unregistered $0-tax NFA items for lawful purposes, such as target shooting in another state or moving to an out-of-state residence. Consequently, for these and other policy reasons, the Department will not enforce § 5861(j), consistent with the Attorney General’s statement on October 9, 2026.

I’ve reached out to the ATF for clarification and will update this post with their response when I hear back.

**Update** 

After further review, I think I understand the ATF and DOJ policy here, though it’s a little confusing at first glance.

The two statements refer to different statutes. DOJ says it won’t enforce 26 U.S.C. § 5861(j), which is the NFA provision prohibiting interstate transportation of an NFA firearm that hasn’t been registered.

But the Gun Control Act separately requires advance approval under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4) before an individual can transport an SBR or SBS across state lines. That requirement isn’t dependent on the firearm being registered under the NFA, so ATF says it remains in effect despite the Jensen/Silencer Shop injunction. The GCA statute doesn’t apply to suppressors or AOWs either, which is why they’re not included in that guidance.

In practice, this means someone covered by the injunction or DOJ’s nonenforcement policy could possess an unregistered SBR or SBS, and DOJ wouldn’t prosecute them under § 5861(j) for taking it across state lines, but they still have to file a Form 20 and receive ATF approval before doing so. I’m interested to learn how ATF intends to process a Form 20 for an SBR or SBS that doesn’t exist in the NFA registry, and what information the agency will retain about those unregistered firearms.

There’s another part of the FAQ that I missed at first glance, and this is crucially important.

The GCA prohibits an FFL from selling or delivering a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun, except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General. 18 U.S.C. 922(b)(4). Traditionally, the NFA approval process satisfied this requirement. Although the district court enjoined the NFA approval process, it did not enjoin the GCA authorization requirement.

At this time, no regulatory mechanism exists to authorize FFLs to transfer short- barreled rifles or short-barreled shotguns outside the NFA process. ATF understands the burden this will create, and ATF is creating forms and drafting regulations as quickly as possible to implement a non-NFA approval process. To deal with the disruption that gap will create in the interim, ATF will exercise its enforcement discretion and not enforce 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4) until such regulations exist.

The GCA transfer approval requirement does not apply to transfers to state entities because of a GCA exception for government entities. 18 U.S.C. § 925(a).

Consequently, apart from any enforcement-discretion determination, federal law permits FFLs to continue transferring short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns to state and local governments for official use.

For the most part, though, the new guidance is clear. For those of us living in places without any state or local restrictions on NFA items, we’re now free to purchase (and transfer) suppressors, FFLs without ATF approval. Purchasing these items from an FFL will still require filling out a Form 4473 and passing a NICS check, but there should be no additional government-imposed hoops to jump through going forward, or at least not any imposed by the federal government.

The ATF suggests that process will soon apply to SBRs and SBSs as well, but for the moment the ATF is instead choosing not to enforce that provision of the Gun Control Act until they promulgate regulations on those transfers. That sounds like FFLs can transfer short-barreled firearms outside of the NFA process now, but there may be some FFLs who are hesitant to do, and FFLs in states that still require NFA registration will almost certainly continue to conduct those transfers only through the NFA process.

**Original story below**

It’s not quite accurate to say the NFA has been gutted. SOT taxes still have to be paid on these items, and if Congress were to reimpose a making and transfer tax of even a dollar on suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and AOWs then Judge Hendrix’s injunction would likely soon disappear. Hendrix based his injunction on Congress’s taxing power, not the Second Amendment. Without a tax, Congress doesn’t have the authority to establish a registry of who has paid that tax. But if the tax were to come back in some form, then the registry would almost certainly return as well (though legal challenges under the Second Amendment would still continue).

This is a huge and historic change, so please be patient with your local FFLs as they navigate these new waters… and await new inventory from the makers of these items that can now be sold without first getting ATF approval.

**Update**

One more update with some more resources for folks who want to hear about this guidance from folks who have more experience deciphering legalese… including the guys who wrote the new guidance.

I’m only a teeny bit jealous that Cekada and Rob Leider spoke with Gutowski about this instead of Bearing Arms Cam and Company, but I do hope that the ATF director and general counsel will also think about doing a townhall-style event to answer questions in addition to a podcast that’s currently behind a paywall (it will eventually be available for non-Reload members as well, however).

Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros is also doing a live thread on his take on the guidance and FAQ, and it’ll be worth your time to follow along or to read the thread in its entirety when he’s through.