While an injunction has blocked enforcement of much of the NFA for a lot of people and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has voluntarily decided not to enforce those parts for anyone, state laws may still make NFA registration necessary for many. People in states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, and many others who want to buy silencers, short-barreled shotguns and rifles, as well as Any Other Weapons (AOWs) are directly impacted. So, we have a firearms lawyer practicing in several of those states on the show to explain the situation.

Gilbert Ambler runs a law firm that practices across several East Coast states and specializes in firearms law. He also runs The Commonwealth's Gun Rights channel on YouTube. He's handled cases involving NFA mirror laws, and he sees several issues people in states with them will face if they want to buy any of the affected NFA items.

First, Ambler said these mirror laws have historically been pretty dormant. But he agreed that they'd taken on new importance given the movement at the federal level. He said there's no clear count of how many NFA mirror laws exist since states tend to only regulate some NFA items and don't always regulate the same ones--although, he said some estimates put the number around 15.

Ambler noted that states also differ in how they word their mirror laws. Some, like Virginia, simply refer to owners needing to comply with federal law while others, like Pennsylvania, specifically say they need to comply with the NFA. But he argued the most important difference isn't necessarily in wording, but in the legal status of the owner: those directly covered by the Silencer Shop v. ATF injunction are on firmer ground when bypassing NFA registration than those only covered by the ATF's voluntary non-enforcement decision.

Special Guest: Gilbert Ambler.

Links:
-https://thereload.com/florida-announces-residents-dont-need-atf-approval-for-silencers-short-barrel-shotguns/
-https://thereload.com/analysis-dojs-attempt-to-moot-under-21-handgun-case-implicates-nfa-injunction-member-exclusive/
-https://thereload.com/podcast-atf-director-chief-counsel-explain-new-guidance-on-silencers-sbrs-member-early-access/

Director Cekada and Chief Counsel Leider laid out what the process will look like for legally buying, selling, and making things like silencers, short-barrel shotguns and rifles (SBR), and Any Other Weapons (AOWs) in the wake of Silencer Shop v. ATF. They said the ATF will treat all law-abiding Americans the same under the new guidance and won't enforce the enjoined sections of the NFA against anyone regardless of whether they are technically covered by the injunction. They said for most people, depending on the state they live in, buying a silencer or SBR would now be effectively identical to buying a gun that isn't regulated by the NFA: just pass a background check and pay.

The pair also discussed what ATF expects from licensed gun dealers who sell the impacted NFA items. They said the ATF will also treat all dealers the same regardless of whether they are technically covered by the injunction. But they also said dealers will still need a Special Occupational Tax (SOT) designation to sell the items, even though they no longer need to fill out all of the traditional sales paperwork.

Cekada and Leider cautioned that neither the injunction nor the ATF's guidance impacts state law, more than a dozen of which require ATF approval for residents to possess NFA items. They said the ATF doesn't have an alternative process for granting permission to possess NFA items, but will allow people to voluntarily continue registering NFA items in order to comply with state law.

Cekada also published an open letter, and ATF released a frequently asked questions document that detail how ATF plans to handle the situation. Leider encouraged people to read those documents before reaching out to ATF for more information, but the pair also said they would be fielding more questions down the line.

Special Guests: Robert Cekada and Robert Leider.

That's because, in a bit of a surprise move, the Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to appeal the injunction before the stay on it expired. That led to a symbolic sale of an unregistered silencer between several of the named plaintiffs in the case early Thursday morning. But it has also created a lot of new questions about exactly who and what is covered by the injunction.

To try and bring some clarity to the issue, we've got gun-rights lawyer and Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) legal research director Kostas Moros back on the show. SAF is a named plaintiff in a similar case in the Eighth Circuit, and its sister organization, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, is a plaintiff in the Texas case. Kostas said the injunction is fairly complex and nobody has all the answers for every potential eventuality.

However, he also said that the ruling appears to be very expansive. He said it enjoins enforcement of many of the NFA regulations associated with silencers, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, and the "any other weapon" category. He said it also covers all named plaintiffs, including all of their members and customers. And it covers both current and future members and customers.

Kostas noted there are a number of caveats, though. For instance, he said it doesn't have any impact on state laws, and many of those could still trip people up. He also said it doesn't cover the entire NFA or even all of the NFA's regulations on the impacted items. He argued there's a lot still left to figure out, and the final answers for many of the open questions will have to come from the DOJ and ATF.

Kostas also discussed the legal strategy at play, including what he'd like to see the DOJ do with a potential appeal and how vulnerable the current legal situation may be.

Special Guest: Kostas Moros.

Links:
https://thereload.com/gun-group-republican-candidate-transfer-unregistered-silencer-as-doj-misses-appeal-deadline/
https://thereload.com/analysis-who-and-what-is-covered-by-the-nfa-injunction-member-exclusive/
https://thereload.com/michigans-democratic-senate-candidate-floated-replacing-the-second-amendment/
https://thereload.com/federal-appeals-court-upholds-pennsylvania-mans-conviction-for-unauthorized-gun-shipment-to-haiti/
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-08-13/doj-la-sheriffs-department-settle-lawsuit-concealed-carry-firearm-permit-application-delays
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/08/13/doj-says-post-office-carry-ban-contradicts-federal-law-n1233510

To do that, we have one of the plaintiffs in the case. Travis White is the President of the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC), which filed suit against the NFA the same day the federal government officially slashed a number of NFA taxes to $0. He said that's what made the NFA vulnerable to a challenge, at least the provisions that regulate silencers, short-barrel rifles and shotguns, and what the law calls "any other weapons."

US District Judge James Wesley Hendrix agreed. He ruled that the NFA sections whose taxes were eliminated also lost their constitutional justification. White said the judge was persuaded by the plaintiffs' argument that the NFA is, at its heart, an exercise of Congress's taxing power and its provisions can only stand if they are in furtherance of collecting revenue.

White said Hendrix agreed with FRAC that a $0 tax can't justify imposing registration, fingerprinting, and various other requirements to prove it has been paid. White argued that if a tax doesn't even try to raise funds, then it can't be considered a tax. Hendrix was persuaded.

But that didn't end the inquiry. White said the judge also determined the remaining NFA taxes on machineguns or gun makers don't mean the regulations on the untaxed items can stand. He also brushed aside a justification based on the Necessary and Proper Clause. And he concluded the NFA doesn't fit under the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce either.

Special Guest: Travis White.

To help explain the phenomenon, we have the man who made the device with us on the show. Zachary Clark appears to be the first person to get official Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) approval for a silencer made primarily of a russet potato. He said he did it for the lols, but not just them.

Clark, who is a social media manager at the National Association for Gun Rights, argued there is a very real risk to using a potato as a silencer without going through the full registration process. He noted that the ATF has repeatedly argued anything attached to the muzzle of a firearm that reduces the report of a gunshot could be considered a silencer under the NFA. He said without going through the fingerprinting and registration process, it's possible anyone who attempts to use a potato as a silencer could be charged with a federal felony carrying a decade in prison and hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

So, Clark said he registered a pair of potatoes as a form of political protest. Or, perhaps, political performance art is a more apt description. Either way, he said he's not expecting backlash from the ATF, even with all the attention he's receiving, but he thinks the agency changing its mind may just make the situation all the more humorous.

Special Guest: Zachary Clark.

That's because we've seen this all before. Twice.

On Wednesday, a Fifth Circuit panel reissued its opinion in US v. Peterson for the second time. That makes it the third revision. To discuss the difference between the three, we have federal litigator and legal commentator Gabriel Malor back on the show.

He noted that in every version, the panel upheld Peterson's conviction for possessing an unregistered silencer. However, he said each version became less expansive than the last. In the latest version, Malor pointed out that the subtle changes the panel made all went toward emphasizing that Peterson's Second Amendment challenge was only as-applied to him and that the panel thought he did a particularly bad job.

Malor argued the panel was sending signals with its edits. He said the judges had moved pretty far from their original holding that silencers are not arms protected by the Second Amendment. And, even though they still ruled Peterson's challenge failed, they laid out a potential path for how other challengers might succeed.

Special Guest: Gabriel Malor.

Now, a few weeks later, those groups have nearly all sorted into two coalitions, and they've both filed suit. One coalition, led by Gun Owners of America (GOA), filed in the Fifth Circuit. Another, led by the National Rifle Association (NRA), filed in the Eighth Circuit.

To analyze the arguments of each case, we've got independent gun-rights lawyer Matt Larosiere on the show. He's brought both tax power and Second Amendment challenges against the NFA before. So, he has direct experience with the claims at issue in both cases.

Larosiere said he is on board with the logic behind the GOA and NRA lawsuits, but he argued they face a difficult climb to achieve their goals. He said tax challenges are more complex than most people imagine, and it can be difficult for Second Amendment attorneys to navigate the waters of a successful pleading. He said the Second Amendment claim in the NRA case may have an easier path, but noted it wasn't a new tactic and has failed in the past.

Special Guest: Matt Larosiere.

I think we judged that correctly because we had enough great questions on enough interesting topics sent in by Reload Members to fill up one of our longest podcasts of the year. We discussed everything from the impacts of the National Firearms Act tax cut to the future of the NRA and the Department of Justice's strategy in Second Amendment cases.

Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I dive into the details on each question. We cover a huge variety of topics across every genre of gun coverage.

To do that, we've got the co-founders of Open Source Defense back on the show. In addition to running a smart publication on gun culture and politics, Kareem Shaya and Chuck Rossi also run a firearms business investment firm. They said the tax cut is likely to juice demand for silencers (more accurately known as suppressors), short-barrel rifles and shotguns, as well as guns in the "any other weapon" (AOW) category.

They looked at the recent surge in silencer demand related to last year's precipitous drop in registration processing times as a potential guidepost for how much demand may spike. Kaream noted suppressor sales were up 80 percent year-over-year between 20023 and 2024. He said demand could see a similar jump once the cut hits, although the six-month delay before that happens might depress the market in the meantime.

Meanwhile, Chuck argued that new demand would likely open up innovation in the space. He said he expects new companies will come in to try and produce mass market suppressors or even disposable ones. He said we could see renewed interest in short-barrel rifles and the long-neglected AOW category that leads to new breakout products.

Silencers, short-barrel rifles and shotguns, as well as firearms in the "any other weapons" category will now see a $0 tax in place of the previous $200 one. But not everyone in the gun world is happy about that. So, we have Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms back on the show to work through what the text does, why it ended up the way it did, and whether gun owners should consider it a win.

Cam noted the final text is not everything gun-rights activists had pushed for since the Senate Parliamentarian ruled full delisting was against the rules of budget reconciliation. He said he disagreed with the ruling and could understand why some gun-rights activists unsuccessfully pushed to fire or overrule her. However, he also said it was important to understand the politics of the situation in order not to be caught off guard by either one of those reasonably predictable outcomes.

Despite arguments to the contrary, Cam said the law should still be viewed as a win for gun owners. Perhaps an imperfect one, but one of the more significant at the federal level in a generation.

Special Guest: Cam Edwards.

The House included a provision to eliminate the tax on firearm silencers/suppressors and one to completely remove them from the NFA's purview. But that wasn't without controversy, and the Senate is now taking up the bill. That's why we've got Knox Williams, the head of the American Suppressor Association, on the show to update us on where things are headed.

Williams said there was a meeting between gun-rights activists and Senate staffers this week that left him confident they have a good chance of getting everything they want. He said Republicans were on board with the argument that silencers can be fully delisted because the NFA is a tax at its core.

Still, there is a lot of uncertainty about how the parliamentarian will rule on the delisting. Williams agreed that the tax cut is seen as a sure bet. However, he said there's a strong chance delisting gets through, too.

Special Guest: Knox Williams.

Special Guest: Emily Stanley.

That may have implications for not just the ban itself but the law it is housed under: The National Firearms Act (NFA). That's why we've got a gun-rights lawyer who has handled NFA cases. Matt Larosiere gives his view of what the holding in US v. Morgan means for the ban on post-1986 fully-automatic weapons and the NFA writ large.

He notes the case doesn't include an injunction against the ban. Instead, it's limited to the named defendant. He argued it's very likely to be appealed and unlikely to win at the next level, though he couldn't say for sure.

Larosiere said the barrier to plaintiffs winning cases against the ban was less a legal one than a public or judicial perception one. Still, he argued the victory in Morgan was not meaningless. He said it would help him and other gun-rights activists in future cases against the ban as well as other portions of the NFA.

Special Guest: Matt Larosiere.