What is the current status of the bill attempting to remove suppressors from the NFA?

Posted on May 25, 2025 by John Pierce

NOTE:  I will keep this post updated as the bill moves throughout the legislative process.

————————————————–

The original version of President Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ included a provision which eliminated the National Firearms Act (NFA) tax on suppressors but left them subject to the other provisions of the NFA.

In a subsequent amendment, which was approved by the House of Representatives, suppressors were removed from the NFA altogether.

But being approved by the House does not guarantee that version of the bill will become law.  Now that it has passed the House, it must be voted on in the Senate.  Often, the Senate will pass a different or modified version of a bill and then there has to be a conference committee convened to resolve the differences. So, the final version may be one of these two options or something else altogether.

Once both chambers have passed the bill, and any changes have been reconciled, the final version will be sent to the President to be signed or vetoed.

Some common questions I have been asked:

1) If passed, when will the bill become effective?

If signed by the President, the bill will become law and will be effective based upon the effective date laid out in the bill.  The current version of the bill has this language regarding the effective date of the suppressor changes:

“(d) Effective Date.–The amendments made by this section
shall apply to calendar quarters beginning more than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

So … for example … if the bill was signed into law on June 6, then 90 days would take us to September 4.  The quarter that starts after that date is the 4th quarter of 2025 which starts October 1.  Therefore, if the current language survives the Senate, the bill would become effective October 1, 2025.

2) What will happen to those suppressors already registered under the NFA?

That is a good question that will probably not be answered until the ATF promulgates regulations following the enactment of the final bill.

3) Will there be refunds for those suppressors already registered under the NFA?

The bill does NOT provide for the refunding of previously paid excise taxes under the NFA.

4) If I currently live in a state that only allows suppressors if they are owned in compliance with the NFA, will I lose my suppressor?

That is a very interesting question.  Attorney Tom Grieve has done a detailed breakdown of this issue on his YouTube channel.

Short answer … at least in the short term, there will almost certainly be collateral consequences in some states.

Posted in NFA Trusts | Comments Off on What is the current status of the bill attempting to remove suppressors from the NFA?

Understanding the status of forced reset triggers in Virginia

Posted on May 22, 2025 by John Pierce

In an agreement between the government and Rare Breed Triggers, announced Friday May 16th, 2025, the Department of Justice agreed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives overstepped its authority in reclassifying forced reset triggers (FRTs) as machine guns and will return any such items seized or surrendered to them.

While this is great news for gun owners at the federal level, it doesn’t solve the issue for those in Virginia.  In fact, it potentially sets a legal trap for the unwary.

In the 2020 session, the General Assembly added section 18.2-308.5:1 to the Code of Virginia, which made it unlawful for any person to ‘manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, possess, transfer, or transport an auto sear or a trigger activator in the Commonwealth.‘

In this code section, “trigger activator” is defined as “a device designed to allow a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of any semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter.”  This definition was specifically designed to encompass forced reset triggers and other devices that operate in a similar manner.

And while those who own registered pre-ban auto sears are protected by a clause in the new law that exempts those items owned in compliance with the National Firearms Act, this protection does not extend to the otherwise lawful ownership of trigger activators since they are not regulated under the NFA, as recognized in the aforementioned settlement.

Therefore, this sets the stage for confused Virginia residents, hearing of the settlement with the DOJ, who attempt to have their seized or surrendered items returned to them, or who purchase such items from out of state vendors and bring them into the Commonwealth, being prosecuted under the new law.

And the penalty for such confusion could be severe.  A violation of the new law is prosecuted as a Class 6 Felony.

If you are a Virginia resident who had your forced reset trigger seized or voluntarily surrendered a forced reset trigger to the BATFE, and they contact you about returning said item, you should seek counsel before taking any action.

If you have questions or would like assistance with the forced reset trigger issue, then feel free to contact me for a consultation.

Posted in 2A, Administrative Law, ATF, ATF Ruling, BATFE, Court Rulings, Forced Reset Triggers, Machine Guns, Regulatory Rulemaking, Virginia Law | Comments Off on Understanding the status of forced reset triggers in Virginia

Buying a firearm while in the Virginia Address Confidentiality Program

Posted on November 2, 2024 by John Pierce

Recently, a dealer I represent contacted me with a question regarding an identification document that a customer was attempting to use to purchase a firearm.

In this case, the customer was presenting a driver’s license with a PO Box as the address coupled with a Commonwealth of Virginia Address Confidentiality Program (ACP) card.

The customer was under the belief that the FFL was required to accept the PO Box as their residential address based upon their participation in this program.  The FFL, understanding that failing to comply with both Virginia State Police and ATF identification and residency requirements could impact their license, was understandably concerned and reached out for advice.

Let’s break the issue down.

First, this is a valid program in Virginia (many other states have their own version as well).  Virginia’s version allows victims of domestic violence, stalking, and other crimes to protect their actual address from most forms of public disclosure.

The sample card pictured above represents what the actual cards look like when issued. Attorney General Miyares has a video introduction to the program available on YouTube.

In the video commentary, AG Miyares states the following (with the relevant sections bolded):

In recognition of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, Attorney General Jason Miyares is encouraging Virginians impacted by domestic violence, stalking, sexual violence, human trafficking, and child abduction to apply for the Address Confidentiality Program (ACP) offered by the Office of the Attorney General’s Victim Services Unit.

The ACP provides a legal substitute address, ensuring a survivor’s actual physical location is shielded from public records and inaccessible to their abuser. Participants in the ACP are assigned a confidential mailing address to use for all first-class mail, legal matters, and government interactions.

The Office of the Attorney General securely forwards mail to the participant’s actual address, preventing any direct connection to their new location. This protection extends to both adults and minors whose parent or guardian is enrolled in the program. Once enrolled, participants are responsible for notifying state and local agencies of their ACP status.

Government agencies are legally required to accept the ACP address as the participant’s official residential address. The certification lasts for three years, with the option to renew.

These assertions form the basis of the customer’s belief that the FFL should be required to accept the PO Box as their residential address.

But that alone does not mean the ACP address is valid for firearms purchases.  We need to look deeper.

Next let’s look at the Form 4473 requirements under federal law.  The Form 4473 require a non-PO Box address when purchasing a firearm.  There are certain exceptions, and a variance may be requested under those circumstances.  However, for reasons I will discuss later in the article, I do not believe those apply here.

Turning to the AG’s website for the program, we see even more relevant detail.

In the description on that site, they note that “Currently private businesses and federal agencies are not required to accept a participant’s substitute address.”

Perhaps most importantly, the code section that governs the ACP is § 2.2-515.2 which states in subsection F that:

F. A program participant may request that any state or local agency use the address designated by the Office of the Attorney General as the program participant’s address, except when the program participant is purchasing a firearm from a dealer in firearms.

Since state law does not authorize the use of the ACP address for the purchase of firearms, the variance opinion linked above would not authorize a variance.

Therefore, a person in the ACP program with a PO Box on their Virginia ID document is currently prohibited from purchasing from a dealer unless they have a separate qualifying identification document containing their actual physical address.

Those impacted by this issue should reach out to their state and local representatives and ask that legislation correcting this issue be introduced.

Posted in 2A, ATF, ATF Guidance Letters, Federal Law, FFL Issues, Purchasing Firearms, Virginia Law | Comments Off on Buying a firearm while in the Virginia Address Confidentiality Program

Trust approval times continue to impress

Posted on July 11, 2024 by John Pierce

I have written twice over the last several weeks about how the new ATF approval process is benefitting trust applicants as well as individuals, but I still have clients who want to see concrete examples.

This is an approval one of my clients received today (with all identifying information redacted of course).  It took two days for a trust approval.

For more information on the new process and how it is helping trust applicants, see the previous articles below:

SilencerShop confirms that approvals for trusts the ATF sees frequently are as fast as individual approvals

Why the new eForms processing rules are actually good news for trust applicants

 

 

 

Posted in ATF, BATFE, eForms, Form 1, Form 23, Form 4, NFA Transfers, NFA Trusts | Comments Off on Trust approval times continue to impress

Supreme Court strikes down ATF bump stock reinterpretation

Posted on June 14, 2024 by John Pierce

In a 6 to 3 decision, the Supreme Court has dealt yet another blow to the ATF’s rampant administrative overreach.

In the case of Garland v. Cargill, embedded below, the court ruled that, despite the emotional pleas underlying the push to reinterpret the statute, the statutory text is clear in its meaning.

A “semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machinegun’ because it does not fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger.’”

They went on to note that the ATF and the judiciary are bound by the clear text of the statutes Congress enacts.  If Congress writes those statutes poorly, “it is never our job to rewrite . . . statutory text under the banner of speculation about what Congress might have done.”

And speaking of ‘rewriting’ or ‘reinterpreting’ statutes, we can only hope that there will soon be a ruling that reduces the amount of deference the courts grant to administrative agencies such as the ATF when they use their regulatory rulemaking authority to do that very thing.

Download (PDF, 480KB)

Posted in Administrative Deference, Administrative Law, ATF, ATF Ruling, Bump Fire Stocks, Court Rulings, Machine Guns, US Supreme Court | Comments Off on Supreme Court strikes down ATF bump stock reinterpretation