Status of Firearm Related Bills in the 2026 Legislative Session

Posted on January 9, 2026 by John Pierce

Virginia Under Siege

Several anti-civil rights bills are awaiting the Governor’s signature (or to go into effect is she fails to act on them in 30 days) and both gun owners and the firearms industry are facing an uncertain future in Virginia.

For a complete list of all bills impacting gun owners and the firearms industry and what their current status is, please see the Bill Tracker I maintain for the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and sign up for the VA-ALERT email updates.

I have started to do detailed articles about the bills that are generating the most concern and the following shortcuts will take you to each of those detailed articles:

Posted in 2A, AR-15, Assault Firearms, Concealed Handgun Permit, FFL Issues, Magazine Capacity, Second Amendment, Suppressors, Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit, Virginia Law, Virginia Politics | Comments Off on Status of Firearm Related Bills in the 2026 Legislative Session

Background Checks Are Still Required for Suppressors Purchased on Form 4473 Without a Form 4

Posted on September 25, 2026 by John Pierce

Over the past several days, several clients have contacted me because they understood that a GOA member purchasing a suppressor from a seller protected by the recent federal injunction could simply complete an ATF Form 4473 and take possession without undergoing a background check. In other words, they believed that completing Form 4473 was the only remaining requirement once the Form 4 process was removed.

That understanding is incorrect.

Completing Form 4473 and undergoing a background check are related steps, but they are not the same thing. Form 4473 is the federal transaction record containing the purchaser’s identifying information, eligibility answers, and certifications. The background check is a separate inquiry initiated by the Federal Firearms Licensee through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or through the state point of contact that accesses NICS. In Virginia, that inquiry is submitted through the Virginia State Police.

For an injunction-protected suppressor transfer completed without an approved Form 4, the purchaser must still complete Form 4473 and, absent some separate and independently applicable exception, the FFL must still initiate the federally required background check.

The Injunction Does Not Eliminate the Gun Control Act

The injunction in Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, No. 6:25-CV-056-H (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2026), prevents the federal defendants from enforcing specified National Firearms Act registration, application, and approval provisions against the protected plaintiffs and, where applicable, their members and customers. The final judgment identifies particular provisions of the NFA and its implementing regulations that may not be enforced in covered transactions.

The injunction does not suspend the Gun Control Act. It does not enjoin 18 U.S.C. § 922(t), the federal dealer background-check statute. It does not invalidate the Form 4473 regulations in 27 C.F.R. Part 478. It does not create a general background-check exemption for GOA members, and it does not enjoin the Virginia State Police from administering Virginia’s point-of-contact system.

The injunction therefore changes the NFA side of a covered transaction, but the purchaser and FFL must still comply with the separate requirements imposed by the Gun Control Act.

A Suppressor Remains a “Firearm” Under Federal Law

Under 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3)(C), the federal definition of “firearm” expressly includes a firearm muffler or firearm silencer. A suppressor consequently remains a firearm for Gun Control Act purposes even when the federal government is enjoined from requiring a Form 4 in a particular transaction.

That classification triggers the ordinary federal rules governing an FFL’s transfer of a firearm to an unlicensed purchaser.

18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(1) generally prohibits a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer from transferring a firearm to a nonlicensee unless the licensee first initiates the required background-check inquiry and receives the response—or satisfies the applicable statutory waiting provisions—required by federal law. The corresponding regulation is 27 C.F.R. § 478.102.

Separately, 27 C.F.R. § 478.124 requires completion and retention of Form 4473 for an FFL’s over-the-counter transfer to an unlicensed person. One requirement does not replace the other.

Why an Approved Form 4 Normally Eliminates a Second NICS Check

The source of much of the confusion is the rule governing ordinary NFA transfers.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(t)(3)(B), the normal point-of-sale background-check requirement does not apply when the Attorney General has approved the transfer under 26 U.S.C. § 5812. Similarly, 27 C.F.R. § 478.102(d)(2) recognizes an exception for an NFA firearm that has been approved for transfer under Part 479.

In a traditional Form 4 transaction, ATF conducts the relevant background check during the NFA approval process. When the approved transferee later takes possession, the dealer still completes Form 4473, but ordinarily does not initiate a second NICS inquiry for the same person. The current Form 4473 expressly provides for that situation.

The injunction transaction is materially different. If no Form 4 was filed or approved, then:

  • ATF did not conduct a background check through the Form 4 approval process;
  • the Attorney General did not approve the transfer under § 5812; and
  • the statutory NFA-transfer exception in § 922(t)(3)(B) has not been satisfied.

The injunction prevents enforcement of the Form 4 requirement in a protected transaction. It does not declare an unfiled Form 4 to be approved, and it does not transform the transaction into an approved § 5812 transfer. Without that approval, the FFL must fall back on the ordinary § 922(t) background-check process unless some different federal exception applies.

Put simply: an approved Form 4 ordinarily supplies both the NFA approval and the background check supporting the § 922(t)(3)(B) exception. When the Form 4 process is omitted under the injunction, that background-check exception is omitted with it.

How the Check Works in Virginia

Virginia is a full point-of-contact state for NICS transactions. A Virginia FFL ordinarily submits the purchaser’s information to the Virginia State Police Firearms Transaction Center through the state process, rather than contacting the FBI NICS Section directly. VSP then processes the inquiry using the applicable state and federal records systems.

Virginia Code § 18.2-308.2:2 requires background checks for firearms purchased from dealers, but it contains a narrower definition than federal law. For purposes of that particular section, Virginia defines “firearm” as a handgun, shotgun, or rifle capable of expelling a projectile by explosion. A standalone suppressor does not appear to fall within that state-law definition because it is not itself a handgun, shotgun, or rifle and does not expel a projectile.

That does not make a Virginia dealer’s suppressor transfer exempt from a background check. It means that the principal legal source of the check requirement for a standalone suppressor is federal § 922(t), not the independent command of Virginia Code § 18.2-308.2:2. Virginia remains the point of contact through which the FFL ordinarily performs the federally required check.

The Virginia State Police Dealer Procedures Manual recognizes this distinction. It explains that § 18.2-308.2:2 does not address federal “other firearm” categories, but directs dealers to use the state form category that best accommodates an “other” firearm requiring a NICS check. ATF’s Form 4473 instructions likewise place silencers in the “Other Firearm” category.

If the transaction includes both a suppressor and an actual handgun, rifle, or shotgun, Virginia Code § 18.2-308.2:2 would independently apply to the firearm included in the transaction.

What Purchasers Must Do

A purchaser relying on the injunction should expect the dealer to require both Form 4473 and a VSP/NICS background check. The purchaser should:

  • verify that both the purchaser and the seller are actually within the injunction’s protected classes and that the particular transaction is covered;
  • provide complete and truthful answers on Form 4473 and any required Virginia form;
  • provide the identification and information needed for the VSP/NICS inquiry;
  • wait until the dealer is legally permitted to complete the transfer; and
  • continue to comply with all other federal and Virginia possession and eligibility restrictions.

Membership in GOA is relevant to the possible scope of the NFA injunction. It is not a NICS-exempt permit and does not authorize the purchaser to demand that an FFL skip the background check. A Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit also is not currently recognized by ATF as a qualifying alternative to the NICS check.

Purchasers should also remember that false statements on Form 4473 can create serious federal criminal exposure under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(1)(A). Virginia Code § 18.2-308.2:2(K) separately penalizes an intentional, materially false statement on the state consent form or firearm transaction records required by federal law.

What FFLs Must Do

An FFL handling one of these transactions should not treat proof of GOA membership or proof of injunction coverage as a substitute for ordinary Gun Control Act compliance. The FFL should:

  1. Confirm and document the basis for concluding that the buyer, seller, and transaction fall within the injunction.
  2. Complete Form 4473 and classify the suppressor in the appropriate “Other Firearm” category.
  3. Initiate the federally required background check through VSP/VCheck unless another genuine § 922(t) exception applies.
  4. Record the VSP/NICS transaction information and response in the appropriate portion of Form 4473.
  5. Not mark the NFA-approval exception merely because the transfer is proceeding without a Form 4. That exception applies when there is an actual approved NFA transfer and the required person was checked during that approval process.
  6. Observe all remaining federal requirements, including prohibited-person, age, residency, identification, record-retention, and actual-buyer rules.
  7. Retain appropriate documentation supporting the dealer’s conclusion that the NFA injunction covers the transaction.

An FFL that skips the check based solely on the injunction risks violating the Gun Control Act and Part 478 even if the underlying no-Form-4 transfer is protected from enforcement under the NFA. Depending on the facts and the dealer’s state of mind, violations can produce criminal exposure, administrative action against the license, or both.

The Practical Rule

For a Virginia FFL transferring a suppressor to an unlicensed purchaser without an approved Form 4 under the protection of the injunction, the safest and legally supported rule is straightforward:

No Form 4 does not mean no background check.

The buyer completes Form 4473, and the dealer ordinarily initiates the required background check through the Virginia State Police. The dealer should not invoke the NFA-transfer exception on Form 4473 because no NFA transfer was approved and no background check occurred through the Form 4 process.

This remains a rapidly developing area. The injunction is limited to its terms and protected parties, and future ATF guidance, appellate proceedings, or additional court orders could affect implementation. Purchasers and dealers should obtain transaction-specific advice before relying on the injunction.

This article provides general legal information and is not a substitute for advice concerning a particular purchaser, dealer, suppressor, or transaction.

Principal Authorities

  • Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, No. 6:25-CV-056-H, Memorandum Opinion and Final Judgment, ECF Nos. 136–137 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2026).
  • 18 U.S.C. §§ 921(a)(3)(C), 922(a)(6), 922(t), and 924(a)(1)(A).
  • 26 U.S.C. § 5812.
  • 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.102 and 478.124.
  • ATF Form 4473 and current instructions.
  • Virginia Code § 18.2-308.2:2.
  • Virginia State Police, Dealer Procedures Manual, Appendix A, Question 21.
Posted in 4473, Background Checks, Injunctions, Suppressors, Tax Stamp | Comments Off on Background Checks Are Still Required for Suppressors Purchased on Form 4473 Without a Form 4

Rapidly Changing Legal Landscape: Under-21 Handgun Purchases Nationwide and in Virginia

Posted on September 25, 2026 by John Pierce

Updated September 25, 2026

The legal landscape governing handgun purchases by adults between 18 and 20 years old changed dramatically this month—but the practical answer in Virginia remains clear.

On September 18, 2026, the United States Department of Justice announced that it would no longer seek federal criminal penalties against federally licensed firearms dealers who sell handguns to otherwise law-abiding adults ages 18 through 20. The announcement followed a new opinion from DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel concluding that the federal age restriction violates the Second Amendment.

That is a major federal development. It is not, however, a repeal of the federal statute, a nationwide court injunction, or a ruling that overrides state law.

For Virginia residents and Virginia FFLs, the bottom line is:

An adult under 21 still cannot lawfully purchase a handgun from an FFL in Virginia.

What Changed at the Federal Level?

Since 1968, 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(1) has prohibited an FFL from selling a handgun to a person under 21. A companion provision, § 922(c)(1), applies the same minimum-age rule to certain non-face-to-face transactions.

On September 17, 2026, the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel issued a formal opinion concluding that these restrictions cannot constitutionally be enforced against dealers selling handguns to otherwise law-abiding adults between 18 and 20 years old.

The following day, DOJ publicly announced that it may not seek criminal penalties against dealers who make such sales.

This is more than a casual policy statement. OLC opinions generally provide controlling legal advice to federal Executive Branch agencies, including DOJ and ATF.

Nevertheless, several important limitations remain:

  • Congress has not repealed §§ 922(b)(1) or 922(c)(1).
  • ATF has not completed a rulemaking removing the age restriction.
  • The current version of 27 C.F.R. § 478.99 still says an FFL may not transfer a handgun to someone under 21.
  • ATF’s public minimum-age guidance still states that an FFL cannot transfer a handgun to a person under 21.
  • The OLC opinion speaks specifically about imposing federal criminal penalties. It does not clearly explain how ATF will handle licensing inspections, revocation proceedings, forms, background-check procedures, or other administrative matters.

In other words, DOJ has announced a significant federal non-enforcement position, but the underlying statutory and regulatory machinery has not yet caught up.

The Federal Courts Remain Divided

The new DOJ position follows several conflicting federal court decisions.

The Fifth Circuit: The Restriction Is Unconstitutional

In Reese v. ATF, 127 F.4th 583 (5th Cir. 2025), the Fifth Circuit held that the federal restriction violates the Second Amendment as applied to law-abiding adults ages 18 through 20.

On January 27, 2026, the federal district court entered a final judgment and permanent injunction implementing that decision.

The scope of that injunction is limited. It applies:

  • only within Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi;
  • only to the named plaintiffs; and
  • only to people who were members of the plaintiff organizations on January 27, 2026.

It is not a nationwide injunction, and it does not protect a Virginia dealer making a transfer in Virginia. Additional appellate proceedings remain pending.

The Fourth Circuit: The Restriction Is Constitutional

Virginia is within the Fourth Circuit, which reached the opposite conclusion.

The Eastern District of Virginia initially held the federal restriction unconstitutional in Fraser v. ATF and entered relief for a nationwide class of 18-to-20-year-olds.

But in McCoy v. ATF, 140 F.4th 568 (4th Cir. 2025), the Fourth Circuit reversed. It held that the federal age restriction is consistent with the historical tradition of regulating commercial firearm sales and directed the district court to dismiss the case.

The United States Supreme Court denied review on June 30, 2026.

A denial of Supreme Court review does not mean that the Supreme Court approved the Fourth Circuit’s reasoning. It does, however, leave McCoy as binding federal precedent within Virginia unless it is later overruled by the Fourth Circuit sitting en banc or by the Supreme Court.

DOJ’s new OLC opinion sharply criticizes the reasoning used in McCoy, but an Executive Branch legal opinion cannot overrule a federal court of appeals.

The result is an unusual conflict: the Fourth Circuit says the federal restriction is constitutional, while DOJ now says it is unconstitutional and will not seek criminal penalties under it against qualifying dealers.

Why the New DOJ Position Does Not Authorize Virginia Sales

Virginia enacted its own direct age restriction in 2026.

Under Virginia Code § 18.2-308.7(C):

It is unlawful for any person younger than 21 years of age to knowingly and intentionally purchase a handgun anywhere in the Commonwealth.

A violation is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

The operative language is directed at the purchaser rather than being phrased as a direct dealer prohibition. Nevertheless, it also prevents the FFL from lawfully completing the transaction.

That is because a separate federal provision—18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(2)—prohibits an FFL from transferring a firearm when the purchaser’s purchase or possession would violate applicable state law. The same requirement appears in 27 C.F.R. § 478.99(b)(2).

The new OLC opinion addresses §§ 922(b)(1) and 922(c)(1). It does not invalidate or suspend § 922(b)(2).

Therefore, even if DOJ will not prosecute a Virginia dealer under the federal age provision, a Virginia FFL would still be transferring a handgun in connection with a purchase that Virginia law expressly prohibits.

Federal non-enforcement of one statute does not preempt or nullify Virginia’s separate restriction.

When Did the Virginia Law Take Effect?

The new Virginia restriction was enacted through HB 1525, Chapter 1102 of the 2026 Acts of Assembly.

The enacted legislation contained an emergency clause declaring that it took effect upon passage on April 22, 2026. During subsequent litigation, however, opponents argued that the emergency clause had not received the vote required by the Virginia Constitution. The Lynchburg Circuit Court treated the law as not becoming effective until the ordinary July 1 effective date.

That disagreement no longer changes the present result. Even if the emergency clause was ineffective, the law has been operative since at least July 1, 2026.

What Happened to the Earlier Virginia Injunction?

Virginia’s 2020 universal-background-check law requires most private firearm sales for money or other value to be processed through a licensed dealer.

That requirement created a special problem for adults between 18 and 20.

At the time:

  1. Virginia law allowed an otherwise eligible 18-to-20-year-old to purchase a handgun privately.
  2. Virginia required the private sale to be processed through an FFL.
  3. Federal law prohibited the FFL from transferring the handgun to the young adult.
  4. The combined effect was to eliminate the previously lawful private-purchase option.

In Wilson v. Hanley, the Lynchburg Circuit Court concluded that this interaction unconstitutionally prevented otherwise eligible young adults from purchasing handguns. In October 2025, the court entered a final order and permanent injunction barring enforcement of Virginia’s private-sale background-check statute.

Because the court found the provision inseverable, the injunction temporarily prevented enforcement of the private-sale background-check law as a whole—not merely in transactions involving young adults.

HB 1525 changed the legal premise underlying that decision. Once Virginia directly prohibited an under-21 person from purchasing a handgun, the Commonwealth argued that there was no longer an otherwise lawful private transaction being frustrated by the background-check requirement.

On June 24, 2026, the court dissolved the injunction effective July 1. The Virginia Attorney General announced that private-sale background checks would resume.

Several distinctions are important:

  • The earlier Wilson order was a final trial-court judgment and permanent injunction.
  • The injunction was dissolved; it was not reversed by a Virginia appellate court.
  • The court did not decide whether HB 1525 itself is constitutional.
  • HB 1525 was not the statute originally challenged in Wilson.
  • DOJ’s later change in federal enforcement policy does not automatically revive the dissolved injunction.

A new lawsuit or amended challenge would be necessary to obtain relief against Virginia’s direct under-21 purchase prohibition. As of September 25, 2026, there is no operative injunction authorizing an 18-to-20-year-old to purchase a handgun in Virginia.

What Transactions Remain Possible in Virginia?

The Virginia statute prohibits a person under 21 from purchasing a handgun. It does not generally prohibit an otherwise eligible person who is at least 18 from possessing one.

That distinction means a genuine gift or inheritance may be treated differently from a purchase.

However, any claimed gift must actually be a gift. If the young adult supplies the money, reimburses the donor, or arranges for another person to act as the nominal purchaser, the transaction may constitute an unlawful straw purchase and may expose everyone involved to serious state and federal penalties.

Virginia law contains a specific protection for certain purchases by a parent, grandparent, or legal guardian for the lawful use of a child, grandchild, or ward who is ineligible to purchase solely because of age. Even then, the transaction must be structured as a genuine purchase by the adult donor—not a purchase made with the young adult’s funds.

Possession, carrying, transportation, concealed-handgun permits, prohibited-person status, and location restrictions are separate questions.

Practical Guidance for Virginia FFLs

Until a court enjoins the Virginia law or Virginia repeals it, the safest and legally supported dealer policy remains:

Do not transfer a handgun to a person under 21 in Virginia.

Virginia FFLs should not treat the new DOJ announcement as authorization to begin under-21 handgun transfers. The state purchase prohibition and the federal state-law-compliance requirement independently prevent the transaction.

A background-check “proceed” response also should not be treated as overriding the substantive age restriction. Background-check approval means only that the records search did not produce a disqualifying response; it does not relieve the dealer of the obligation to comply with all other federal and state laws.

Dealers should also watch for formal ATF guidance. At present, ATF’s published regulations and public minimum-age materials have not been updated to reflect the new OLC opinion.

Practical Guidance for Virginia Adults Ages 18–20

As of today, an otherwise eligible Virginia adult between 18 and 20:

  • cannot purchase a handgun from a Virginia FFL;
  • cannot lawfully purchase a handgun in a paid private sale within Virginia;
  • ordinarily cannot avoid the restriction by ordering from an out-of-state dealer, because the handgun normally must be transferred through a Virginia FFL;
  • may be able to lawfully possess a handgun received through a genuine gift or inheritance; and
  • should never attempt to use another person as a nominal purchaser or reimburse someone for purchasing the handgun.

The Bottom Line

The nationwide legal foundation of the federal under-21 handgun restriction is breaking apart.

The Fifth Circuit has held the restriction unconstitutional. DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel now agrees and has announced that federal criminal penalties may not be imposed against dealers selling handguns to qualifying 18-to-20-year-old adults. Meanwhile, the Fourth Circuit has upheld the restriction, the federal statutes and regulations remain formally in place, and ATF has not yet issued public implementation guidance.

Virginia has added another layer by directly making the under-21 purchase itself a crime. That independent state restriction currently controls the practical answer.

Nationwide, the answer increasingly depends on the buyer’s state, the dealer’s location, the controlling federal circuit, and whether the parties fall within the protection of a particular injunction.

In Virginia, the answer remains no: an 18-to-20-year-old cannot currently purchase a handgun from an FFL.

This article addresses the law as of September 25, 2026, and is intended for general educational purposes. Because the federal policy is exceptionally new and further litigation or ATF guidance may arrive quickly, dealers and purchasers should confirm the current law before acting.

Posted in 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit, Administrative Law, Age To Possess, Age to Purchase, DOJ, Fifth Circuit | Comments Off on Rapidly Changing Legal Landscape: Under-21 Handgun Purchases Nationwide and in Virginia

Firearms at the Post Office: What the Injunction Protects—and Why Caution is Still Warranted

Posted on September 25, 2026 by John Pierce

Critical warning: The federal injunction is legal protection, not immunity from being stopped or arrested. Postal employees, security personnel, Postal Inspectors, and responding state or local officers may not know about the injunction, may misunderstand its scope, or may be unable to verify a person’s membership.

Even a person who is covered by the injunction could be challenged, ordered to leave, disarmed, detained, cited, have a firearm seized, or arrested before the legal issue is sorted out. Being legally right later does not prevent being placed in handcuffs now.

What happened?

In Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. v. Bondi, No. 4:24-cv-00565-O, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that applying 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) to the possession and carrying of firearms in an “ordinary” post office violated the Second Amendment.

The court permanently enjoined the federal government from enforcing those provisions against the individual plaintiffs and members of the Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”) and Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”) inside ordinary post offices and on surrounding postal property.

On March 17, 2026, the court clarified that its injunction protects all present and future members of FPC and SAF—not merely people who belonged to those organizations when the lawsuit was filed.

The government’s appeal was subsequently dismissed. The injunction therefore remains in effect, although there is no Fifth Circuit merits decision adopting the district court’s reasoning as binding appellate precedent.

Who receives the injunction’s protection?

The injunction directly benefits:

  • The individual plaintiffs in the case; and
  • People who are current members of FPC or SAF.

A person does not need to belong to both organizations. Membership in either should be sufficient.

Membership in the NRA, GOA, VCDL, or another organization does not, by itself, place someone within this particular injunction.

Anyone planning to rely on the injunction should:

  1. Join FPC or SAF before carrying on postal property.
  2. Wait until the membership is active and confirmed.
  3. Keep the membership current.
  4. Retain dated proof of membership, such as a membership certificate, confirmation email, receipt, or membership card.
  5. Carry a copy of the September 30, 2025 injunction and the March 17, 2026 clarification order.

A membership card is not a federal carry permit or an immunity card. It is evidence that the individual may be among those entitled to the injunction’s protection.

The injunction does not cover every postal location

The court limited its order to an “ordinary United States Post Office.” It defined that term to exclude a post office located:

  • On a military base or similarly restricted-access property; or
  • Inside a federal building that houses other government functions and where carrying a firearm would otherwise be prohibited.

Extra caution is necessary at post offices located in courthouses, airports, military installations, federal office buildings, secure government complexes, and other mixed-use or restricted facilities.

The order also should not be treated as permission to enter employee-only, processing, loading, or other nonpublic areas.

If the nature of a location is uncertain, the prudent course is not to carry there until its legal status has been confirmed.

State and other federal laws still apply

The injunction does not excuse violations of other laws. A person relying on it must still:

  • Be legally permitted to possess a firearm under federal and state law;
  • Have any permit or license required by the relevant state;
  • Follow that state’s rules concerning open or concealed carry;
  • Carry only a firearm and ammunition that are lawful in that jurisdiction;
  • Avoid prohibited places that are subject to separate restrictions; and
  • Carry for a lawful purpose, such as self-defense.

The injunction provides no protection for prohibited persons, unlawful weapons, brandishing, threatening conduct, intoxication, criminal activity, or violations unrelated to the two federal provisions addressed by the court.

A permit issued by one state does not override the laws of another state or a separate federal restriction.

What about the postal parking lot?

The injunction expressly refers to both ordinary post offices and the “surrounding Post Office property.” That language is important because it extends beyond the public lobby.

Nevertheless, caution remains appropriate. The order protects “possession and carrying.” It should not automatically be treated as resolving every possible question involving unattended storage, long-term vehicle storage, unusual handling, or other conduct in a postal parking lot.

Anyone attempting to rely on the order should avoid unnecessary handling or display of the firearm. Do not remove, load, unload, or manipulate a firearm in the parking lot unless an immediate emergency makes that conduct legally justified.

A favorable Justice Department opinion also exists

On August 12, 2026, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the “other lawful purposes” exception in 18 U.S.C. § 930(d)(3) includes lawful self-defense carry by an otherwise law-abiding person in a post office open to the public.

The opinion states that the Executive Branch may not enforce § 930(a) or the Postal Service regulation against such a person.

That opinion potentially benefits people beyond FPC and SAF membership, but it is not the same as possessing the direct benefit of a permanent injunction:

  • It is an Executive Branch legal opinion, not a Supreme Court or appellate court judgment.
  • It could be withdrawn or changed by a future administration.
  • It does not bind state courts or necessarily prevent state and local officers from taking action under other laws.
  • It addresses lawful self-defense carry in post offices open to the public. It should not be stretched to restricted facilities, nonpublic areas, employment rules, or unrelated conduct.

For someone seeking the most direct protection currently available, active FPC or SAF membership provides a stronger position because the person can point to a court order expressly protecting the organizations’ members.

Why an otherwise protected person could still be arrested

The practical problem is that the regulation has not disappeared from the Code of Federal Regulations. As of September 23, 2026, 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) still states that firearms may not be carried or stored on postal property except for official purposes. The regulations also authorize postal officials and, in some circumstances, state and local agencies to enforce postal-property rules.

Postal facilities may therefore continue to display signs or regulations stating that firearms are prohibited. Frontline personnel may rely on those materials without knowing about the later court order or Justice Department opinion.

An officer confronting an armed person may also act before researching:

  • Whether the facility qualifies as an “ordinary” post office;
  • Whether the individual’s membership is genuine and current;
  • Whether the injunction applies outside Texas;
  • Whether state carry requirements have been satisfied; or
  • Whether the firearm is being carried for a lawful purpose.

The injunction may ultimately make enforcement improper, but it cannot physically prevent an officer from making an arrest. A person might have to establish the injunction’s application afterward through counsel, a prosecutor, or a court.

What to do if confronted

A postal-property encounter involving a firearm can escalate quickly. If questioned by an employee, security officer, Postal Inspector, or police officer:

  1. Do not touch or reach toward the firearm. Keep your hands visible and follow safety commands.
  2. Do not make sudden movements to retrieve a membership card or court order. Tell the officer where the documents are and ask permission before reaching for them.
  3. Provide legally required identifying information, but do not attempt to argue the entire case on the scene.
  4. Calmly state:“I am a current member of the Firearms Policy Coalition [or Second Amendment Foundation]. A federal injunction in Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc. v. Bondi, No. 4:24-cv-00565-O, prohibits enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) against members at ordinary post offices.”
  5. Ask whether a supervisor or agency attorney can review the injunction.
  6. If ordered to leave and told that you are free to go, leave peacefully. Refusing a direction can create separate allegations—such as trespass, obstruction, disorderly conduct, or failure to obey—that may not be covered by the injunction.
  7. If you are uncertain whether you are being detained, ask: “Am I free to leave?”
  8. If detained or arrested, do not physically resist. Clearly state: “I wish to remain silent, and I want to speak with an attorney.”
  9. If a search is demanded, do not resist, but you may calmly state that you do not consent.
  10. As soon as safely possible, document the location, time, names, badge numbers, witnesses, statements made, property seized, and any signs displayed at the facility. Contact an attorney promptly.

Winning the legal argument later is far preferable to turning a disputed arrest into an allegation of resistance, obstruction, or assault.

Conduct to avoid

Anyone relying on the injunction should avoid:

  • Joining FPC or SAF only after an incident and assuming membership will apply retroactively;
  • Allowing the relevant membership to expire;
  • Assuming membership in another organization provides the same protection;
  • Carrying at military, restricted-access, mixed-use, or uncertain federal facilities;
  • Entering employee-only or nonpublic postal areas;
  • Handling, displaying, or discussing the firearm unnecessarily;
  • Refusing a lawful safety command or physically resisting an officer;
  • Remaining after being directed to leave when free to depart;
  • Assuming the injunction overrides state carry laws;
  • Treating the decision as permission for a postal employee to violate workplace rules;
  • Relying on the decision for mailing or shipping firearms, which is governed by separate laws and postal regulations; or
  • Treating a membership card or copy of the order as a guarantee against detention or arrest.

The most conservative option

A person whose highest priority is avoiding any possibility of a postal-property detention or arrest should not carry a firearm onto postal property until the Postal Service formally updates its regulation, signage, and enforcement training.

That cautious choice does not concede that the old prohibition is legally valid. It recognizes the difference between having a strong legal defense and avoiding the encounter altogether.

Bottom line

The best present argument for direct protection is:

  • Current membership in FPC or SAF;
  • Otherwise lawful possession and carry;
  • An ordinary post office open to the public;
  • A constitutionally protected firearm carried for lawful self-defense; and
  • Compliance with all other federal and state laws.

Even when every one of those conditions is satisfied, however, no one should assume that postal personnel or responding law enforcement will immediately recognize the injunction. A protected person may still be confronted, removed, detained, or arrested and may have to establish the protection afterward.

Anyone considering relying on this injunction should obtain advice concerning the specific facility, applicable state law, membership status, and personal circumstances before carrying.

Primary authorities

This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Firearm and carry laws change frequently, and the application of an injunction can depend on facts that are not apparent from the court’s written order. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Posted in 5th Circuit, Court Rulings, Injunctions, Postal Carry | Comments Off on Firearms at the Post Office: What the Injunction Protects—and Why Caution is Still Warranted

HB 21 Gets Its Enforcement Arm: Democrats Create a Taxpayer-Funded Unit to Target the Firearms Industry

Posted on September 16, 2026 by John Pierce

When Virginia Democrats enacted HB 21 and its companion, SB 27, I warned that the law was not simply about punishing illegal firearm sales. Illegal sales were already illegal. The broader purpose and predictable effect of HB 21 was to place the firearms industry under a vague new civil-liability regime—one capable of making lawful dealers, manufacturers, distributors, and sellers defend their judgment after the fact under standards such as “reasonable controls” and conduct deemed “unreasonable under all the circumstances.”

The Attorney General has now supplied the enforcement machinery.

On September 15, 2026, Attorney General Jay Jones announced the creation of a dedicated Firearms Accountability & Industry Responsibility Unit, or “FAIR Unit,” within the Office of the Attorney General. According to the Attorney General’s announcement, the unit will investigate members of the firearms industry and bring civil-enforcement actions under HB 21/SB 27.

This is not merely a new title placed on an existing employee. The Attorney General’s office says it is recruiting civil litigators, prosecutors, and investigators for the unit. A state job posting says the new unit chief will design complex investigations, build affirmative cases, supervise attorneys and investigators, and oversee outside counsel. Another posting seeks a senior investigator to examine business, financial, regulatory, and transactional records and identify patterns that may support enforcement cases.

In other words, Virginia taxpayers are now funding a specialized litigation operation focused on one constitutionally protected industry. (Unit-chief posting; senior-investigator posting)

What Powers Did HB 21 Give This New Unit?

The reach of HB 21 is intentionally broad. A “firearm industry member” includes a person engaged in the sale, manufacture, distribution, importation, or marketing of a firearm-related product. “Firearm-related product” includes not only firearms, but ammunition, components, unfinished frames or receivers, and firearm accessories. Virginia Code § 59.1-148.5.

The law requires industry members to establish and implement “reasonable controls.” It also declares that unlawful or supposedly unreasonable conduct that knowingly creates, maintains, or contributes to a broadly defined public nuisance can create liability. Virginia Code § 59.1-148.6.

The available remedies are formidable. The Attorney General—or a local county, city, or town attorney—may seek:

  • an injunction restricting a business’s future conduct;
  • abatement of the alleged nuisance at the industry member’s expense;
  • restitution;
  • compensatory and punitive damages;
  • attorney fees and litigation costs; and
  • any other relief a court considers appropriate.

The law also creates a private cause of action for an allegedly injured person and expressly says that a plaintiff need not prove that the industry member intended to create a public nuisance or cause public harm.

Perhaps most concerning for dealers is the Attorney General’s power to issue a civil investigative demand before filing a lawsuit whenever he claims reasonable cause to believe that a person has violated, is violating, or is about to violate the law. Virginia Code § 59.1-148.8.

Through that process, the Attorney General can compel witnesses, sworn testimony, business records, and written answers to interrogatories. Virginia Code § 59.1-9.10.

That means the burden can begin long before the Commonwealth proves a violation—or even files a complaint.

Why “Responsible Dealers Have Nothing to Fear” Is Not an Answer

Attorney General Jones says the FAIR Unit is aimed at “bad actors.” Every responsible dealer supports prosecuting straw purchasers, traffickers, prohibited possessors, and businesses that knowingly violate the law. That is not the dispute.

The dispute is whether government should be able to impose crushing civil exposure through vague, hindsight-driven standards unique to the firearms industry.

HB 21 does not limit liability to a willful violation of a clearly stated firearm statute. It invites arguments over whether a dealer’s precautions were sufficiently “reasonable,” whether a marketing decision was “improper,” whether a business should have detected a risk not apparent at the time, or whether lawful conduct somehow “contributed” to a public nuisance.

The Attorney General’s own announcement identifies marketing practices and “known risks associated with particular products” as possible targets, without supplying a clear rule that lets a business know in advance where lawful commerce ends and liability begins.

That uncertainty is the point at which civil regulation becomes a burden on the exercise of constitutional rights.

The Second Amendment protects people, not businesses. But ordinary Virginians cannot practically acquire firearms, ammunition, training equipment, and accessories without a functioning lawful marketplace. Pressure the dealers, manufacturers, distributors, insurers, and payment providers, and the burden inevitably reaches the citizen.

Some businesses will limit inventory. Some will curtail advertising. Some out-of-state companies may decline to serve Virginia customers. Dealers may refuse transactions that are lawful but could later be portrayed as insufficiently cautious. Compliance and insurance costs will rise, and consumers will ultimately pay them.

Whether or not the Attorney General will admit that chilling effect as the objective, it is the obvious and predictable result.

Civil Process Can Become the Punishment

A small Virginia gun store does not possess the litigation budget of the Commonwealth. Responding to broad investigative demands, producing years of records, retaining counsel, defending depositions, hiring experts, and litigating an amorphous public-nuisance claim can threaten a business even if the Commonwealth never proves liability.

That is why the creation of a dedicated state unit matters. HB 21 was already a dangerous tool. The FAIR Unit gives the Attorney General specialized personnel whose job is to find targets, develop novel theories, and bring affirmative cases. The Commonwealth can fund that work with public money; every accused business must fund its defense out of its own pocket.

The Orwellian “FAIR” branding does not make that imbalance fair.

What About the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act?

The federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, commonly called PLCAA, has not disappeared. It generally prevents lawsuits seeking to hold lawful firearm businesses responsible for crimes committed by third parties. It does not immunize an industry member from liability for its own unlawful conduct.

HB 21 appears designed to exploit PLCAA’s exception for certain knowing violations of statutes applicable to firearm sales or marketing by creating a new state-law duty and then using an alleged violation of that duty as the basis for suit.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit allowed a similar New York statute to survive a facial challenge, and on June 15, 2026, the United States Supreme Court declined to review that decision. National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. James, Supreme Court Docket No. 25-1026.

That denial of review was not a ruling that every application of such a law is valid. The Second Circuit’s decision is not binding on federal courts in Virginia, and PLCAA preemption, due process, First Amendment, dormant Commerce Clause, and other defenses may depend on the facts of a particular investigation or lawsuit. Those issues will likely become concrete when the FAIR Unit selects its first targets.

What Virginia Dealers Should Do Now

Virginia firearm businesses should treat this announcement as an enforcement warning, not political theater.

Dealers should review and document their compliance procedures, including employee training, straw-purchase warning signs, theft-prevention measures, inventory controls, transaction refusals, marketing practices, and procedures for customers who present evidence of a substantial risk of unlawful use or self-harm.

Written policies matter, but consistent implementation and documentation matter just as much. A dealer receiving a civil investigative demand, preservation request, subpoena, complaint, or informal inquiry from the Attorney General’s office should promptly preserve relevant information, notify any applicable insurer, and obtain counsel familiar with both firearms law and civil enforcement. The deadline to challenge a civil investigative demand can be short.

The Bottom Line

The Attorney General is using state personnel and taxpayer resources to build a specialized enforcement apparatus aimed at the firearms industry.

That should concern every law-abiding Virginia gun owner—not because lawful dealers should be excused from genuine wrongdoing, but because vague civil standards and ruinous litigation costs can be used to suppress lawful commerce without ever directly banning it.

HB 21 supplied the threat. The FAIR Unit shows that Democrats intends to use it.

Posted in "FAIR" Unit, 2A, Civil Liability, Due Process, FFL Issues, Firearms Industry, Second Amendment, Virginia Law, Virginia Politics | Comments Off on HB 21 Gets Its Enforcement Arm: Democrats Create a Taxpayer-Funded Unit to Target the Firearms Industry

Do I need a Form 20 or a Form 5 when sending in my NFA item for gunsmithing?

Posted on September 14, 2026 by John Pierce

Question: Do I need ATF approval before delivering or shipping an NFA firearm to a gunsmith for repair, refinishing, customization, evaluation, or other gunsmithing work?

Short answer: A Form 5 generally is not required, although ATF recommends it as an optional way to document the temporary conveyance. A Form 20 may be required if the NFA firearm will cross state lines. The answer depends primarily upon the type of NFA firearm involved.

Is a Form 5 required?

Ordinarily, no.

Federal regulations do not treat the temporary conveyance of a lawfully possessed NFA firearm to a qualified manufacturer or dealer as an NFA “transfer” when the firearm is delivered solely for:

  • Repair;
  • Identification;
  • Evaluation;
  • Research;
  • Testing;
  • Calibration; or
  • Similar gunsmithing work followed by return to the same lawful possessor.

See 27 C.F.R. § 479.11.

Because the transaction is not considered a transfer, the owner ordinarily does not need to transfer the firearm to the gunsmith on a Form 4 or Form 5. Likewise, the gunsmith ordinarily may return the same repaired firearm directly to the person from whom it was received without a new Form 4, Form 4473, or NICS background check. See 27 C.F.R. § 478.124(a).

This rule is not limited to factory warranty repairs. It can apply when an NFA firearm is temporarily delivered to the original manufacturer, an independent gunsmith, a refinisher, or another properly licensed business for covered work, provided the firearm will be returned to the same lawful possessor.

Why does ATF recommend using a Form 5?

Although a Form 5 is not ordinarily required, ATF has historically recommended using one to document that the gunsmith’s possession is temporary and solely for repair or similar work.

If the parties elect to use the Form 5 procedure, the registered owner submits a Form 5 and waits for approval before delivering the firearm. The gunsmith then submits another Form 5 and receives approval before returning it.

In many cases, the parties instead document the arrangement through a detailed repair order, RMA, or similar business record. ATF’s NFA Handbook recommends that such documentation identify:

  • The registered owner;
  • The receiving gunsmith or manufacturer;
  • The firearm’s manufacturer, model, caliber, type, and serial number;
  • The specific work to be performed;
  • The date the firearm was delivered or shipped;
  • The anticipated repair period; and
  • The fact that the same firearm will be returned to the same lawful possessor.

The owner should also retain the shipping records, repair correspondence, and a copy of the firearm’s registration document. The gunsmith must make any required entries in the business’s acquisition-and-disposition records. ATF generally requires a firearm retained from one business day to another to be recorded in the gunsmith’s A&D records.

Is a Form 20 required if the gunsmith is in another state?

For some NFA firearms, yes.

A nonlicensee must obtain an approved ATF Form 5320.20 before transporting or shipping the following firearms across state lines:

NFA firearm Form 20 required for interstate gunsmithing shipment?
Short-barreled rifle Yes
Short-barreled shotgun Yes
Machine gun Yes
Destructive device Yes
Suppressor or silencer No
Any Other Weapon (AOW) No

The interstate-transportation requirement appears in 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4) and 27 C.F.R. § 478.28.

Shipping the firearm by UPS, FedEx, or another common carrier does not avoid the Form 20 requirement. The regulation expressly contemplates transportation by common or contract carrier.

For a temporary gunsmithing shipment, the Form 20 should identify the gunsmith’s licensed premises as the destination, explain that the purpose is repair or gunsmithing, identify the method of transportation, and provide a date range covering both the outbound shipment and anticipated return. If the firearm cannot be returned within the approved period, the owner should obtain additional authorization before the return shipment.

The fact that the receiving gunsmith holds an FFL or SOT does not eliminate the registered nonlicensee’s obligation to obtain a Form 20 for an interstate shipment of an SBR, SBS, machine gun, or destructive device.

A Form 20 is not federally required for the temporary interstate transportation of a suppressor or AOW. State and local law at the destination must still permit possession of the item.

Must the gunsmith have an FFL?

Yes, if the person is engaged in gunsmithing as a business.

Federal law treats a person who regularly repairs, customizes, refinishes, engraves, or fits barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms for livelihood and profit as a firearms dealer or gunsmith. That person must hold an appropriate federal firearms license. See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(11) and (21), and ATF’s Federal Firearms License information.

For ordinary work on a customer-owned NFA firearm other than a destructive device, a Type 01 dealer/gunsmith FFL is generally sufficient. ATF has stated that a licensed gunsmith repairing or modifying a customer’s personal NFA firearm for return to that customer does not ordinarily need a manufacturer’s FFL or a Special Occupational Tax stamp merely because the firearm is regulated under the NFA.

A Type 03 collector’s license is not a gunsmithing license. Destructive devices require the appropriate destructive-device license.

The analysis changes if the work crosses the line from repairing or customizing an existing firearm into manufacturing a new firearm. A manufacturer’s FFL and the appropriate NFA qualification may be required when the work involves, for example:

  • Creating a new NFA firearm;
  • Completing a firearm for sale or distribution;
  • Replacing the registered receiver or other serialized NFA component;
  • Manufacturing a new suppressor tube or other regulated silencer component; or
  • Performing work as part of another company’s manufacturing process.

The distinction often turns on the purpose and scope of the work, not merely the physical operations performed.

What if the serialized component must be replaced?

The repair exception applies to the temporary conveyance and return of the same lawfully possessed firearm. If the registered receiver, suppressor tube, or other serialized NFA firearm must be replaced, the replacement may constitute a newly manufactured NFA firearm.

A new NFA firearm generally cannot simply be returned under the original registration. Additional manufacturing, registration, and transfer procedures may be required. The owner and repair facility should resolve that issue before authorizing destruction or replacement of the serialized component.

Practical checklist

Before leaving or shipping an NFA firearm for gunsmithing:

  1. Confirm that the recipient holds the appropriate FFL.
  2. Confirm whether the gunsmith will accept the particular type of NFA firearm.
  3. Determine whether the work is genuinely repair or customization rather than manufacturing.
  4. Obtain an approved Form 20 before interstate movement of an SBR, SBS, machine gun, or destructive device.
  5. Decide whether to use the optional Form 5 procedure.
  6. If no Form 5 is used, prepare and retain a detailed repair order or RMA.
  7. Include a copy of the registration document if requested by the gunsmith.
  8. Follow the gunsmith’s and carrier’s shipping instructions.
  9. Confirm that possession is lawful under the laws of the destination state and locality.
  10. Make sure the firearm will be returned to the same registered owner or lawful possessor.

Bottom line: A Form 5 is ordinarily optional for legitimate gunsmithing because temporary possession for repair and return is not treated as an NFA transfer. A Form 20, however, is presently required before a nonlicensee sends or transports an SBR, SBS, machine gun, or destructive device across state lines. Suppressors and AOWs are not subject to the Form 20 requirement.

This article addresses federally registered NFA firearms and federal law as of September 2026. State law, carrier policies, the scope of the proposed work, and the licensing status of the gunsmith may produce a different result in a particular case.

Posted in AOW, ATF, BATFE, Firearms Industry, Form 20, Form 5, Gunsmithing, Shipping Firearms, Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns | Comments Off on Do I need a Form 20 or a Form 5 when sending in my NFA item for gunsmithing?