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

Posted on June 6, 2024 by John Pierce

I had written about this in my previous article, but I think it bears repeating  … the process changes recently made by the ATF and the FBI provide equal benefits to trust and individual applicants, especially when the trust is a ‘standardized’ trust that is seen frequently by the ATF, such as the one I provide to my clients.

In an article posted by SilencerShop that has been making the rounds on the NFA community on Reddit, they confirm these facts.

A few key takeaways from the SilencerShop article:

“Are Trusts Approvals as Fast as Individual? Yes, both trust and individual applications are coming back very fast, we have seen single-day approvals for both types of applications.”

“If you’re looking at the NFA Wait Time Tracker, it will appear that trusts are taking longer than individuals, but this is due to how ATF implemented these changes.”

“While we consistently see trust applications approved in a few days, the average appears higher as all of the older applications are being approved. Trust applications submitted after this process change, around March 15th, 2024, seem to be processing very quickly.”

SilencerShop also discussed a point that I have brought up repeatedly when discussing the issue with my clients.  The NFA Branch is prioritizing ‘standardized’ trusts which are those trusts, such as my own, that they see frequently and do not require research to validate.

They also reiterated that those that have a single responsible person are being processed more quickly since only a single ‘proceed’ is needed to complete the process.

The $100 Virginia trust I provide meets all these requirements and includes lifetime free updates, changes, and questions.  But regardless of which trust you use, do not forego the significant benefits offered by using a trust based upon a mistaken belief that only individual applications are seeing rapid turnaround times.

Posted in AOW, ATF, Background Checks, BATFE, eForms, Form 1, Form 4, Machine Guns, NFA Transfers, NFA Trusts, Processing Times, SBR, SBS, Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns, Suppressors, Tax Stamp | Comments Off on SilencerShop confirms that approvals for trusts the ATF sees frequently are as fast as individual approvals

Is Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law unconstitutional? A California case may provide the answer.

Posted on June 5, 2024 by John Pierce

In Nguyen v. Bonta, a case challenging California’s one-gun-a-month (OGM) law, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California has ruled that the OGM law is unconstitutional and must be enjoined under the historical analog test laid out in N.Y. Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).

In the opinion, the District Court held that “[Buying more than one firearm in a specific period of time] is presumptively protected because it is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment”.  They went on to note that the State failed to satisfy its burden of “producing a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue’ to the OGM law,” as required by Bruen.

The state has appealed the ruling to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and, regardless of the outcome, the Supreme Court will almost certainly be asked to weigh in on the case.

While it is too soon to make predictions, this case may well be the beginning of the end for these types of unconstitutional restrictions on the rights of law-abiding citizens acquiring arms during the time period of their choosing.

Posted in 2A, 9th Circuit, Bruen Decision, Court Rulings, Criminal Law, Federal Court, One Handgun a Month, SCOTUS, Second Amendment, US Supreme Court | Comments Off on Is Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law unconstitutional? A California case may provide the answer.

Supreme Court rules unanimously in NRA’s favor in Vullo case

Posted on May 30, 2024 by John Pierce

In today’s Supreme Court decision regarding National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo, the key issue centered on whether a New York state regulator’s actions violated the NRA’s First Amendment rights.

Specifically, the case examined whether Maria T. Vullo, then Superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, unconstitutionally used her political power to coerce banks and insurance companies into no longer doing business with the NRA due to its stance in favor of gun rights.

This is an issue that gun rights advocates have feared for some time, as anti-gun politicians see this as a way to freeze pro-gun organizations out of the marketplace.  For example, gun stores have found it increasingly difficult to find insurance companies, credit card processors, and even secure banking services.

In a strong rebuke to Ms. Vullo’s position, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of the NRA, finding that Vullo’s actions constituted a clear violation of the First Amendment. The Court determined that the regulator’s efforts to influence financial institutions to sever ties with the NRA, based on the organization’s protected speech, were coercive and therefore unconstitutional.

The decision, written by Justice Sotomayor, hits the key issue and the holding in the first paragraph:

Six decades ago, this Court held that a government entity’s “threat of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against a third party “to achieve the suppression”
of disfavored speech violates the First Amendment. Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 67 (1963). Today, the Court reaffirms what it said then: Government officials
cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors.

This important ruling sets a strong precedent limiting the extent to which government officials can pressure private companies to act against organizations based on their advocacy positions and will provide a framework for challenging other state and federal agencies should this method of cutting off services to the firearms industry continue.

Posted in 2A, Court Rulings, Federal Court, First Amendment, SCOTUS, US Supreme Court | Comments Off on Supreme Court rules unanimously in NRA’s favor in Vullo case

Important Supreme Court decisions that are expected by the first week of July

Posted on May 30, 2024 by John Pierce

The clock is ticking down for several key Supreme Court cases that impact the firearms community.

The first of these cases is United States v. Rahimi which concerns the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), a federal law that prohibits individuals subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms.

The case questions whether this law violates the Second Amendment rights of those individuals given that such a prohibition, based upon limited due process, is unsupported by the historical tradition of gun regulation in the United States, as required by the Bruen decision.

The second case is Garland v Cargill which revolves around whether the ATF exceeded their administrative authority by ‘reinterpreting’ bump stocks as “machine guns”, in direct opposition to years of rulings to the contrary.  In layman’s terms, the question is whether administrative agencies, wielding great deference in interpreting statutes, can effectively write new law without being empowered to do so by the Legislature.

I will report on the rulings as they are issued.

Posted in Administrative Deference, Administrative Law, ATF Ruling, BATFE, Bruen Decision, Bump Fire Stocks, Court Rulings, Domestic Violence, Due Process, Federal Court, Federal Law, Machine Guns, Prohibited Persons, Regulatory Rulemaking, SCOTUS, Second Amendment | Comments Off on Important Supreme Court decisions that are expected by the first week of July

It is finally possible to use the NICS appeal process for NFA denials

Posted on May 29, 2024 by John Pierce

While those of us in the legal community have been helping clients file NICS Appeals and Voluntary Appeal File Applications since their inception, they were not designed with NFA applications in mind.

In fact, since July 13, 2016, when the ATF promulgated Rule 41F which moved all NFA background checks to the FBI, the official position of the FBI has been that NFA background checks are not standard NICS checks and therefore, the NICS Appeal process was not available for NFA denials.

However, starting in January of 2024, the ATF and FBI finalized an agreement to allow those denied when undergoing an NFA background check to use the standard NICS appeal process (what the FBI calls a “Firearm Related Challenge”) to dispute the basis of the denial.

They also formalized a method for those whose NFA applications are returned as ‘delayed/open’ by the FBI to use the Voluntary Appeal File (VAF) process to submit information that will allow the FBI to consider the issuance of a Unique Personal Identification Number (UPIN).  If a UPIN is issued and used in future applications, it should avoid the research delays that can lead to ‘delayed/open’ dispositions on NFA applications.

It is important to note that, despite the fact that both “NICS Appeal Process” and “Voluntary Appeal File” have the word ‘appeal’ in them, neither of these processes is an actual appeal of a specific NFA application.  Rather, they are challenges to the information on your record that led to the denial or delay/open disposition.

If your ‘appeal’ is successful, then it does not reverse the denial.  Rather, a new NFA application will need to be submitted, including any UPIN that may have been issued.

If you have received a denial or delay/open disposition status on your NFA application and would like assistance, then feel free to contact me.

Posted in 41F, Administrative Law, ATF, ATF Ruling, Background Checks, BATFE, FBI, NFA Denials, NFA Open Disposition, NFA Transfers, NICS, Prohibited Persons | Comments Off on It is finally possible to use the NICS appeal process for NFA denials