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

ATF NFA Registration Changes and What They Mean for Virginia Gun Owners and Dealers

Posted on October 10, 2026 by John Pierce

ATF’s October 9 open letter announces nationwide non-enforcement of NFA approval and registration requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and “any other weapons” (AOWs).

While this offers immediate relief from paperwork and approval delays and is a major victory from a gun-rights perspective, it is far less certain from a legal perspective.  There are many questions that Virginia gun owners and dealers should resolve before changing their practices.

To summarize my conclusions for those who don’t have time to read my entire analysis, for most clients, I still recommend an approved Form 1 or Form 4. The reasons include Virginia laws that require ‘compliance with federal law’, potential future moves to states that require NFRTR registration, potential future return to enforcement rendering items contraband subject to seizure, future prosecution, FFL licensing issues, transfers, and estate planning.

What has changed—and what has not

Effective January 1, 2026, Congress reduced the making and transfer taxes to $0 for these categories of NFA items.  This was via law and not simply agency non-enforcement as is the case with the new update.  Specifically, Section 70436 of Public Law 119-21 amended 26 U.S.C. § 5811 and § 5821, but did not repeal the registration statutes. Machineguns and destructive devices remained subject to the $200 taxes and full NFA requirements.

In Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, No. 6:25-CV-056-H (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2026), a federal district court held that the challenged requirements for zero-tax firearms could no longer rest on Congress’s taxing power. It rejected the government’s alternative Commerce Clause justification without deciding the Second Amendment claims. The injunction protects specified plaintiffs, persons, and transactions; it is not universal relief.

ATF has now extended nonenforcement nationwide through enforcement discretion. Under the letter and accompanying FAQs, it will no longer require prior NFA making or transfer approval, registration, manufacturers’ registration notices, or NFA markings for covered firearms. The policy also covers related unregistered-firearm offenses and interstate transportation under § 5861(j). ATF retains enforcement of the altered-serial-number and unlawful-importation provisions in § 5861(h) and (k).

Voluntary Forms 1, 2, 3, and 4 (and one assumes Form 5, but it is not mentioned) remain available. The making or transfer tax for a covered item is $0 whether the owner chooses registration or relies on the non-enforcement policy. Business occupational taxes, Gun Control Act (GCA) requirements, and state restrictions remain separate obligations and are not affected by the announced change.

Reasons to be concerned

1. An enforcement policy is different from a change in the law

The published statutory framework, which is still valid law, requires:

  • Application and approval before transfer under 26 U.S.C. § 5812.
  • Application and approval before making under § 5822.
  • Registration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (NFRTR) under § 5841, with associated criminal provisions in § 5861.

The ordinary procedures also remain in 27 C.F.R. Part 479, including §§ 479.62–479.71, 479.84–479.86, and 479.101. Sections 5812 and 5822 do not expressly make approval disappear whenever the tax rate becomes zero. The non-enforcement letter does not amend those provisions.

That does not mean that every requirement remains constitutionally enforceable. The Texas court held otherwise for the challenged provisions. The distinction is between a statutory command, its constitutional validity, the scope of judicial relief, and an agency’s decision not to enforce it.

Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), recognizes substantial enforcement discretion. It does not authorize agencies to repeal statutes. Under Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), federal courts independently decide statutory meaning; ATF’s position does not dictate their conclusions.

Virginia also lies within the Fourth Circuit. In United States v. Jones, 976 F.2d 176, 183–84 (4th Cir. 1992), that court upheld NFA requirements involving machineguns, discussing tax-related functions and commerce authority. Jones predates the zero-tax amendment and concerns different circumstances. It does not automatically decide today’s issue, but the Fourth Circuit has never met a gun control bill that it would not bend over backwards to uphold.

2. Virginia’s SBR and SBS exception requires federal compliance

Virginia’s Sawed-Off Shotgun and Sawed-Off Rifle Act creates an immediate concern.   Section 18.2-300 makes possession or use is a Class 4 felony unless an exception applies. Section 18.2-306 also authorizes seizure and judicial confiscation under specified circumstances.

The principal civilian exception, § 18.2-303.1, protects a covered firearm “possessed in compliance with federal law.” The question is what federal compliance means when ATF declines to enforce requirements still appearing in federal law, especially given that Virginia’s current administration has expressed extreme disdain for law-abiding gun owners and has gone to extraordinary lengths to create a legal environment in which those owners risk criminal prosecution for even the most technical violations.

The prosecutor’s argument I would expect to hear in such a case: Nonenforcement does not establish compliance with an existing, and still valid, law. The nationwide announcement expressly rests on discretion. Whether a person or transaction falls within the Silencer Shop injunction also requires separate examination.

ATF itself says it cannot determine whether unregistered possession under its policy satisfies state-law exceptions. My assessment is that the letter alone does not conclusively establish Virginia’s exception for an unregistered SBR or SBS.

A Virginia prosecutor or court is not automatically bound by ATF’s view. Miller v. Commonwealth, 25 Va. App. 727, 492 S.E.2d 482 (1997), illustrates the limits of reliance on federal advice: In that case, the court found that ATF lacked authority to define the defendant’s Virginia-law obligations.

Dealers also face § 18.2-304, which requires a registry of covered rifles and shotguns containing specified identifying and transaction information. It provides inspection duties and Class 3 misdemeanor penalties. A federal acquisition-and-disposition record may omit required Virginia fields. The former §§ 18.2-301 and 18.2-305 are repealed; that does not erase the dealer registry or resolve the possession exception.

In summary, I would not treat the federal-compliance possession exception as permission to abandon obligations under Virginia law.  Especially given that the FAIR unit is newly formed and salivating over the chance to ruin dealer’s livelihoods.  I can almost guarantee that if any NFA item transferred on a Form 4473 rather than through the traditional NFA process is subsequently used in any type of criminal offense, the dealer who sold it will find themselves squarely in the crosshairs of HB 21 and the newly created FAIR enforcement unit. In my view, the Democrats established this unit specifically to target and weaken Virginia’s firearms industry, and I have little doubt they will seize upon such a case as an opportunity to pursue the dealer, even if the original transaction had nothing to do with the subsequent criminal conduct.

3. SBR and SBS have Federal Gun Control Act Requirements

SBR and SBS purchases have an additional federal issue: § 922(b)(4) independently requires specific federal authorization. 27 C.F.R. § 478.98 ordinarily uses an approved Form 1 or Form 4 but when not using such, ATF acknowledges that no alternative regulatory mechanism exists and will decline enforcement while preparing one. This is yet another active law that dealers will have to violate if taking advantage of the non-enforcement policy.

Meanwhile, § 922(b)(2) continues to prohibit dealer transfers contrary to applicable state or local law. A questionable Virginia transfer can therefore create federal exposure despite relaxed NFA enforcement. Federal licensing consequences depend on the applicable requirements, including willfulness under § 923(e).  While the current ATF administration is taking a non-enforcement approach, I think we all have a pretty good idea of what may happen in the midterms and the next presidential election. Political administrations change, and enforcement priorities can change with them. Dealers and purchasers would be wise not to put themselves in a position where they are violating existing federal law and relying solely on the current administration’s willingness to look the other way.

4. Interstate transport still requires care

For an ordinary unlicensed owner, § 922(a)(4) and § 478.28 still require advance approval for interstate SBR or SBS transportation through Form 5320.20, commonly called Form 20. This applies even to an unregistered firearm and includes permanent moves.

However, federal approval cannot override a state prohibition, and § 926A should not be treated as guaranteed protection for every unregistered NFA journey.  Many states require NFA items to be registered in the NFRTR to be legal in that state.

5. Later registration is not assured

ATF’s FAQs itself specifically warns that federal law supplies neither automatic grandfathering nor a general later-registration opportunity. They also state that an item removed from the registry cannot be re-registered absent an Attorney General amnesty. Such relief is discretionary.

The standing rule in 27 C.F.R. § 479.101 does not provide a general cure for an already unlawfully possessed firearm.  If a future administration abandons the current policy of non-enforcement before there is a final, controlling judicial ruling on the constitutionality of these requirements, all affected unregistered NFA firearms could potentially become contraband subject to seizure and forfeiture.

6. Transfers and estates benefit from an established process

Registered firearms have familiar routes for sales, gifts, trust transfers, and succession. The NFA transfer definition in § 5845(j) includes gifts and loans. A properly administered trust can provide ownership continuity and authorized shared possession, subject to federal and state law.

For firearms registered to a deceased individual, 27 C.F.R. § 479.90a provides an established executor-and-beneficiary process, including approved Form 5 transfers. An unregistered firearm lacks that same conventional route. Current nonenforcement may cover an estate distribution, but it does not guarantee later Form 5 registration if the non-enforcement policy ends.  An heir could inherit an NFA firearm collection purchased under the non-enforcement policy, only to discover that a subsequent change in enforcement policy has made continued possession unlawful, potentially forcing the heir to surrender their inheritance.

My practical recommendations

Prospective purchasers and makers:

The reasoning in my earlier article, Why I Still Recommend a Form 4 for Most Suppressor Buyers — For Now, remains valid.  Registration can preserve many options that a 4473 simply does not.

FFL dealers:

Carefully review the requirements discussed above concerning Virginia’s SBR and SBS dealer registry and the applicable federal Gun Control Act (GCA) provisions. If you choose to sell these firearms without following the traditional Form 4 process, remember that ATF’s current policy is one of non-enforcement, not repeal. The underlying statutes remain in effect, and a future administration could revisit these transactions from either a criminal enforcement or federal licensing perspective.

You should also keep Virginia’s newly created FAIR Unit, established to pursue violations of HB 21, firmly in mind when making these decisions. Given the current political environment and the increased scrutiny of firearms dealers, I would be extremely cautious about adopting business practices that depend entirely on the continued exercise of federal enforcement discretion.

In Summary

Privacy and avoiding approval delays are legitimate considerations. However, they should be weighed against future restrictions and policy changes. Resumed enforcement could raise due-process and reliance defenses, but those defenses do not guarantee continuing possession or automatic registration. Potential felony penalties and forfeiture remain part of the statutory framework under § 5871 and § 5872.

I certainly welcome reduced burdens for lawful owners and am happy to see the ATF taking a pro-citizen stance. Nonetheless, my advice remains to use the voluntary Form 1 and Form 4 process until the court make a final ruling on the constitutionality issues raised in the Silencer Shop case. The fastest purchase today may limit the choices available to you and your family tomorrow.

This article addresses authorities and guidance available on October 9, 2026. It provides general legal information; particular firearms, transactions, injunction coverage, and state-law exceptions require individual review.

Posted in "FAIR" Unit, 2A, 4th Circuit, 5th Circuit, Administrative Deference, Administrative Law, AOW, ATF, ATF Guidance Letters, Criminal Law, Federal Court, Federal Law, FFL Issues, Firearms Industry, Form 1, Form 20, Form 4, Inheriting Firearms, Interstate Move, Interstate Travel, NFA Injunction, NFA Trusts, SBR, SBS, Second Amendment, Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns, Virginia Law, Virginia Politics | Comments Off on ATF NFA Registration Changes and What They Mean for Virginia Gun Owners and Dealers

Why I Still Recommend a Form 4 for Most Suppressor Buyers – For Now

Posted on September 28, 2026 by John Pierce

The 4473-only option is faster, but an approved Form 4 provides important flexibility for trusts, shared possession, travel, repairs, later transfers, and estate planning.

The recent permanent injunction in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF is an important victory. For qualifying purchasers, sellers, and transactions, it creates a path to acquire a suppressor without waiting for ATF approval of a Form 4 and without registering the purchaser as the suppressor’s owner in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

That does not necessarily mean the fastest path is the best path for every buyer.

For most of my clients, I presently recommend seriously considering the traditional Form 4 process—particularly a Form 4 directly to a properly drafted NFA trust—even when a qualifying 4473-only transfer may be available. The reason is not that the injunction is meaningless. The reason is that it is limited, many important questions remain unresolved, and the traditional registration system provides practical benefits that a 4473-only purchaser may be giving up.

The choice is no longer simply between paying $200 and waiting many months or taking a suppressor home immediately. The federal transfer tax on suppressors is now $0, and ATF’s most recent published statistics reported a median processing time of eight days for eForm 4 applications. Processing times can vary of course, but the burden of choosing a Form 4 is substantially lower than it once was.

This Is Really “Form 4 Plus Form 4473” Versus “Form 4473 Only”

Form 4 and Form 4473 are not interchangeable forms serving the same function.

An ordinary dealer transfer using the traditional NFA process generally involves both forms. The Form 4 is the application to approve the transfer and register the suppressor to the individual or trust. Form 4473 is then completed as the dealer’s federal firearms transaction record when the approved transferee takes possession.

The new injunction-based option eliminates the Form 4 for a qualifying transaction. It does not eliminate Form 4473 or the required background check. The accurate comparison is therefore:

  • Traditional route: approved Form 4, NFRTR registration, and Form 4473; or
  • Injunction route: Form 4473 and background check, but no approved Form 4 registering the suppressor to the purchaser.

That missing Form 4 affects far more than the speed of the original purchase.

The Injunction Is Permanent, but It Is Not Universal

The court permanently enjoined ATF and DOJ from enforcing specifically identified NFA provisions against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their current and future members and customers. It did not strike the NFA from the United States Code, and it did not issue a nationwide injunction protecting everyone in every transaction.

DOJ has publicly indicated that it does not intend to appeal the judgment. That makes the existing injunction more durable, but it does not expand the judgment beyond the parties and protected classes identified by the court. It also does not answer the many implementation questions the judgment left open.

As of this article’s publication, ATF had not issued comprehensive guidance addressing later registration, trusts, resale, interstate travel, estates, or the NFRTR status of suppressors transferred through the 4473-only process.

The court was particularly clear about two limitations that matter after the original sale.

First, the court held that protection for customers of the commercial plaintiffs and commercial members extends only to those customers’ transactions with the protected businesses. The court expressly rejected the idea that becoming a customer gives someone a blanket exemption for every NFA firearm that person later possesses, makes, sells, or transfers.

Second, the court declined to extend protection automatically to resident family members living in the same household as a protected purchaser.

Those limits create serious questions about what happens after a qualifying purchaser leaves the dealer with a suppressor that is not registered to the purchaser. The original transaction may be protected while a later loan, transfer, trust contribution, shipment, or estate distribution is not.

A Form 4 to a Trust Provides Shared Possession

One of the most important advantages of a properly drafted NFA trust is that more than one authorized trustee can lawfully possess and use trust-owned firearms, subject to the trust terms and applicable law. That can allow a spouse, adult child, or other trustee to have independent access without the primary purchaser being physically present.

That flexibility is not automatically available when an individual acquires a suppressor through a 4473-only transaction.

The NFA definition of “transfer” is exceptionally broad. Under 26 U.S.C. § 5845(j), it includes selling, assigning, pledging, leasing, loaning, giving away, or otherwise disposing of an NFA firearm.

A protected owner’s GOA membership does not automatically protect the owner’s spouse, family member, friend, employee, or hunting companion. The court specifically declined to include resident family members merely because they live with a protected person.

A buyer should therefore not assume that another person may borrow the suppressor, take it hunting alone, keep it in a jointly accessible vehicle, or have unsupervised access merely because the buyer was protected during the original purchase.

For someone who wants genuine shared access, the more predictable path is a Form 4 directly to a trust, with the intended users added as trustees or responsible persons in accordance with the trust and federal law.

An Individual’s Membership Does Not Automatically Protect a Trust

A trust is a separate legal person for NFA purposes. An individual’s membership in GOA or another protected association does not automatically make the individual’s trust a member or extend the injunction to the trust.

There may eventually be procedures through which a trust can establish independent associational or customer-based protection. But unless the organization has accepted the trust itself as a member and confirmed that status in writing, relying on the settlor’s personal membership to protect the trust would be risky.

Moving a 4473-only suppressor from the individual into a trust later presents an even larger problem. That would be a new transfer to a different legal person. It would not be the original dealer-to-customer transaction protected by the injunction, and the trust might have no independent protection at all.

There Is No Assured “Register It Later” Procedure

Someone considering a 4473-only purchase should not assume that the suppressor can simply be moved into a trust or placed on a Form 4 later if circumstances change.

ATF’s longstanding NFA Handbook states that ATF will not approve a transfer unless the firearm is registered to the transferor in the NFRTR. Under the ordinary system, only a previously registered NFA firearm can move through a later Form 4 transfer.

The recordkeeping situation after a 4473-only transfer is itself unsettled. The suppressor may already appear in the NFRTR through the manufacturer’s Form 2 and later dealer-to-dealer Form 3 transfers. What is missing is an approved Form 4 transferring and registering it to the retail purchaser or the purchaser’s trust.

Industry guidance has noted that ATF has not supplied a clear mechanism for removing such an item from the dealer’s NFRTR inventory after a 4473-only disposition—or for registering it to the purchaser later.

That means a buyer should not rely on the theory that the choice can easily be reversed. ATF may eventually create a corrective or voluntary-registration process, but no purchaser should assume that such a process presently exists or will be made available.

Lending, Selling, or Trading the Suppressor May Be Much Harder

The original purchaser may be protected, but a later transferee may not be.

A conventional registered suppressor can be sold or transferred through the established Form 4 process. A dealer can determine who is shown as the registered owner, submit the proper application, and wait for ATF approval before delivery.

A 4473-only purchaser has no approved Form 4 identifying that purchaser as the registered transferor. A later private sale, trade-in, consignment, gift, or transfer to a trust may therefore lack an established administrative path. The original commercial plaintiff’s customer protection does not automatically follow the suppressor into later private transactions.

This may substantially reduce the suppressor’s resale value. A dealer or prospective buyer may be unwilling to accept an item when its NFRTR status and the legal authority for the next transfer are unresolved.

Interstate Travel Is a Serious Unresolved Risk

Registered suppressors ordinarily do not require advance approval on ATF Form 5320.20 before interstate travel, although the owner must still comply with the laws of every destination and intervening jurisdiction.

A suppressor that is not registered to its owner presents a different problem. The injunction did not enjoin 26 U.S.C. § 5861(j), which prohibits transporting, delivering, or receiving in interstate commerce an NFA firearm that has not been registered as required by the NFA.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has warned that this leaves interstate movement unresolved, including moving to another state, traveling for a hunting trip, shipping the suppressor for repair, or otherwise transporting it across state lines. SilencerCo has gone further and currently recommends that customers who use the 4473-only route keep the suppressor in the state of purchase until the issue is resolved.

For a Virginia purchaser, that means a same-day 4473-only suppressor should not be treated as an ordinary travel item merely because possession is permitted in Virginia.

Fifteen States Still Tie Suppressor Possession to NFA Registration or Compliance

Current post-ruling guidance identifies fifteen—not sixteen—states in which state law continues to require the traditional NFA process or otherwise conditions lawful suppressor possession on federal registration, licensing, authorization, or NFA compliance:

  • Alaska
  • Colorado
  • Connecticut
  • Georgia
  • Michigan
  • Mississippi
  • Montana
  • Nevada
  • North Carolina
  • North Dakota
  • Ohio
  • Oregon
  • Pennsylvania
  • Washington
  • Wisconsin

The language differs from state to state. Some statutes expressly require registration in the NFRTR. Others define registration, federal authorization, or compliance with the NFA as an exception, exemption, or affirmative defense to an otherwise applicable prohibition.

Because the federal injunction does not alter state law, a Virginia resident should not take a 4473-only suppressor into one of these states without obtaining state-specific legal advice. Current industry guidance treats these jurisdictions as continuing to require a Form 4.

Suppressors also remain generally prohibited for ordinary citizens in California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia. A Form 4 does not override those prohibitions.

Even when traveling only between states classified as “free states,” the unresolved federal issue under § 5861(j) remains. State legality is therefore only one part of the travel analysis.

Repair and Warranty Work May Be More Complicated

ATF’s August 28, 2026, Open Letter on silencer repairs permits qualified manufacturers to repair a registered complete silencer or change its caliber without treating the work as the making of a new silencer, provided the serialized frame or receiver and required markings are preserved and the work stays within the stated limits.

The letter repeatedly bases its conclusions on the silencer already being registered in the NFRTR. It explains, for example, that replacement components become part of the already registered complete device and may then be returned to the registered owner.

That guidance does not clearly provide the same safe harbor for a suppressor that was delivered through a 4473-only transaction and is not registered to the customer. Shipping the suppressor across state lines for repair also raises the unenjoined § 5861(j) issue.

Manufacturers may choose to honor warranties, but the legal mechanism for receiving, repairing, replacing parts in, and returning a suppressor that is not registered to the customer is not yet as settled as it is for a Form 4 suppressor. Buyers should ask the manufacturer and dealer about their written warranty and repair policies before choosing the 4473-only route.

Estate Planning and Inheritance Are Far More Predictable With Registration

ATF’s established estate procedure allows a registered NFA firearm to pass tax-free to a lawful heir on an approved Form 5. If the suppressor is owned by a properly administered trust, trust ownership may also provide continuity after the death or incapacity of an individual trustee.

ATF’s NFA Handbook takes a very different position on an unregistered firearm found in an estate. Under its standing guidance, an NFA firearm that was not registered to the decedent is treated as contraband that cannot be lawfully possessed or transferred through the ordinary estate process.

The injunction may supply constitutional or equitable arguments in a future estate dispute, particularly if the decedent was a protected member. But membership ordinarily ends at death, the estate and heirs are different legal persons, and the court refused to extend protection automatically to family members. There is presently no dependable Form 5 procedure for passing a 4473-only suppressor to an heir.

For a durable asset expected to remain in a family for decades, that uncertainty matters.

A Form 4 Provides Recognized Proof of Lawful Ownership

An approved Form 4 and NFRTR entry provide a familiar record identifying the suppressor, its serial number, and the person or trust entitled to possess it. Federal law expressly requires a registrant to retain proof of registration and make it available to ATF upon request.

A 4473-only buyer instead depends on proving why the injunction covered the original transaction. That may require preserving:

  • proof of qualifying organizational membership;
  • proof that the membership was effective on the relevant dates;
  • the purchase invoice and serial number;
  • documentation showing that the manufacturer, seller, and dealer were within the protected transaction chain;
  • evidence of the completed Form 4473 and background check; and
  • copies of the judgment and other supporting legal materials.

That evidence may ultimately establish a defense, but it is less familiar to local officers, out-of-state authorities, repair facilities, insurers, executors, and future purchasers than an approved Form 4.

The Form 4 Burden Is Currently Much Smaller

There are real advantages to the 4473-only process: no fingerprints, no passport photograph, no CLEO notification, no NFA approval wait, and no registration of the purchaser in the NFRTR. For a buyer whose primary objective is avoiding federal registration, those advantages may be decisive.

But the traditional process no longer carries a $200 transfer tax for suppressors. ATF’s latest published processing figures reported:

  • a median of eight days for eForm 4 applications;

Those figures are not guarantees, but they materially change the cost-benefit analysis. A relatively short wait may purchase years of additional certainty concerning possession, trust ownership, travel, repairs, resale, and inheritance.

My Present Recommendation

The injunction is a major step toward dismantling an unnecessarily burdensome federal system. I hope it becomes the foundation for broader relief that ultimately makes these concerns obsolete.

We are not there yet.

For most Virginia purchasers—especially anyone who wants to share the suppressor with family members, place it in a trust, travel or hunt outside Virginia, preserve manufacturer repair options, sell it later, or pass it to heirs—I believe the more prudent choice is still to use a Form 4.

If shared possession or estate planning is important, the cleaner approach is usually to acquire the suppressor directly through a properly drafted NFA trust rather than first registering it to an individual.

A 4473-only transfer may make sense for a carefully informed purchaser who:

  • places a high value on avoiding federal registration;
  • intends to remain the only person exercising possession or control;
  • expects to keep the suppressor in Virginia;
  • accepts the uncertainty surrounding repairs, resale, later trust ownership, and inheritance;
  • maintains the organizational membership supporting injunction coverage; and
  • preserves extensive documentation of the purchase and the basis for protection.

The key is to make that decision with full knowledge of the long-term limitations. Taking possession today is only one part of owning a suppressor for the next twenty or thirty years.

For most buyers, an approved Form 4 remains the more portable, transferable, shareable, repairable, and estate-friendly option. Until broader relief or clear ATF guidance resolves the remaining questions, speed should not be the only consideration.

This article provides general legal information and does not constitute transaction-specific legal advice. The injunction’s implementation and related federal and state laws remain subject to change.

Principal Authorities and Further Reading

Posted in 2A, 4473, ATF, Federal Court, Federal Law, FFL Issues, Form 4, Injunctions, Interstate Travel, NFA Injunction, NFA Transfers, NFA Trusts, Suppressors, Tax Stamp | Comments Off on Why I Still Recommend a Form 4 for Most Suppressor Buyers – For Now

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