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.

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.

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.