What is the wait time going to be for suppressor approval starting 1/1/2026?

[Wind Gypsy]

That graphic doesn't align with what I recall reading about states that are party to the lawsuit so it must just be states that have separate laws regarding suppressors. Certainly dont see MN as a "free state" and north dakota as not..

I have an OCM6 getting delivered to SOT tomorrow. It would be cool if they let me have it on a 4473..

 

[Big Sky Guy]

That graphic doesn't align with what I recall reading about states that are party to the lawsuit so it must just be states that have separate laws regarding suppressors. Certainly dont see MN as a "free state" and north dakota as not..

I have an OCM6 getting delivered to SOT tomorrow. It would be cool if they let me have it on a 4473..

Yea there was a post by Montana Shooting Sports Association that kinda clarified it. Montana was part of the lawsuit but I guess as a state, not as citizens, supposedly the AG is working on an “advisory." Seems like a dropped ball and joke for a supposed pro-2A state run by R's as the one guy above posted. Would be an even bigger blunder if MN is indeed a "free state."

Here is the post from Facebook:

“Dear MSSA Friends,

The US DOJ and the BATFE have decided to NOT appeal the Texas federal court decision that the National Firearm Act's requirement for federal registration of suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs is unconstitutional. The court held that because the authority for that was based on Congress's tax power in the Constitution, and then Congress recently eliminated the tax on those items, then continuing to require federal registration of those items exceeds the enumerated powers of Congress.

The federal court issuing this decision also placed a seven-day stay (hold) on the decision to give the feds time to appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That stay expired today, Wednesday, August 12. US DOJ did not appeal or ask for further stay, and has actually announced that it will not appeal this decision. So, this federal court decision holding that federal registration of the affected items is unconstitutionzl is now in effect.

So, what does this mean for us here in Montana?

First, the decision only applies to plaintiffs in the two consolidated court cases subject to the decision. I will put the full list of plaintiffs below, but it includes Silencer Shop, GOA, SAF, and a bunch of others. It includes current and future customers of Silencer Shop, and current and future members of the organizational plaintiffs such as GOA.

Montana was also a plaintiff, but that doesn't help us. Montana was a plaintiff on behalf of the state, which includes state government and political subdivisions such as counties and cities, but it does NOT include Montana citizens.

There is another wrinkle. It took MSSA a decade to wipe Prohibition-era laws off the Montana law books making the affected items illegal to possess. As a bone to law enforcement, it seemed a good bargain at the time to leave antique laws on the books making it a state felony to possess these devices that are not federally registered. As of today, it is no longer possible to register them with the feds. So, what are we to do?

MSSA already has a bill prepared for the 2027 Montana legislative session to repeal these orphaned state laws. But, that's a ways in the future. Meanwhile, pro-gun Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen has assured me that he will issue some sort of advisory that these orphaned Montana laws are no longer enforceable.

As soon as the AG issues this advisory (expected soon), and IF you are a member of one of the plaintiff groups like GOA, or if you buy from Silencer Shop, you should be good to go.

However, all of these items are still "firearms" (including suppressors) under the Gun Control Act, so purchase of these items will still need to go through a licensed dealer and you will still have to complete a 4473 and clear the background check.

I expect a few rough edges to appear as this all gets smoothed out. A cautious approach would be to wait a bit, certainly for the AG advisory, for all this to settle out before rushing out to purchase any of these items.

There are still some unanswered questions. What will the status be for items already registered with the feds? Can they be transferred in private party transactions? What about home-made items, especially suppressors? One would think, since these don't go through a licensed dealer, that they would be wide open. But, I've seen no firm legal argument for that yet.

All in all, this is great news, even if still-evolving news.

Here are all of the parties my AI says are plaintiffs in the two consolidated lawsuits that are subject to this Texas federal court decision:

The recent federal district court ruling in Texas declaring certain aspects of the National Firearms Act (NFA) unconstitutional stems from consolidated cases:Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF(Case No. 6:25-cv-00056) andJensen v. ATF(Case No. 6:26-cv-00227).
The full list of actual plaintiffs in these consolidated cases includes the following organizations, states, and individuals:
Organizational Plaintiffs:
• Gun Owners of America (GOA)
• Gun Owners Foundation
• Silencer Shop Foundation
• Palmetto State Armory
• SilencerCo
• B&T USA
• Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition
• American Suppressor Association(ASA)
• Second Amendment Foundation(SAF)
• Firearms Policy Coalition(FPC)
• Texas State Rifle Association
• FPC Action Foundation
• Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms
• Hot Shots Custom, LLC(a federally licensed firearms dealer)
Individual Plaintiffs:
• Brady Wetz
• John Jensen
• Jeremy Neusch
• David Lynn Smith
State Plaintiffs (a coalition of 15 pro-gun states):
• Alaska
• Georgia
• Idaho
• Indiana
• Kansas
• Louisiana
• Montana
• North Dakota
• Oklahoma
• South Carolina
• South Dakota
• Texas
• Utah
• West Virginia
• Wyoming
Best wishes,
--
Gary Marbut, PresidentMontana Shooting Sports Associationhttp://www.mtssa.orgAuthor, Gun Laws of Montanahttp://www.mtpublish.com”

 

[Big Sky Guy]

And I think you need to fill out a 4473, regardless. Which defies all logic to me, since it’s not capable of firing a projectile.

I don’t disagree as to me it’s a muzzle device, in the same category as a flash hider or muzzle brake.

However I did read that keeping it a 4473/firearm extends 2A protections to them so may be a benefit in the long run. I would also assume in state private transfers would be same as guns with no 4473/NICS check needed in the 27 free states that don’t require form 4?

 

[Bowmannate2000]

Would be an even bigger blunder if MN is indeed a "free state."

Rare "W" for us Minnesotans

 

[brownbear932008]

However I did read that keeping it a 4473/firearm extends 2A protections to them so may be a benefit in the long run.

IMO that is also a double edged sword. Because of that ruling from the SC it will be a tough fight to ever change to OTC purchases as an accessory which in my opinion is what a suppressor truly is. It is only a firearm because of legislation wording. It's in no way shape or form a firearm and shouldn't need the second amendment protections.

 

[cowboy]

Big Sky Guy: First of all THANK YOU for your updates, opinions and trying to shine some light on something that is clear as mud.

Question for you: I am a resident of Montana but I own property in Idaho and South Dakota. Can I go into an Idaho or SD shop and circumvent the Montana regulations legally?

 

[Big Sky Guy]

Big Sky Guy: First of all THANK YOU for your updates, opinions and trying to shine some light on something that is clear as mud.

Question for you: I am a resident of Montana but I own property in Idaho and South Dakota. Can I go into an Idaho or SD shop and circumvent the Montana regulations legally?

Good question, I don't know. Let us know if you find out you can, I would just call a couple suppressor dealers over there and see what they say.

I don't see how being a property owner would have any merit though, but they are bordering states so could see it as a possible loophole but I would be pleasantly surprised if this were the case. Not sure I would use it as I don't really live close to either border and without the tax stamp I don't mind waiting 5-7 days or whatever and paying the $25 fee which would likely still be the same as gas (still pretty frustrating seeing guys in "free" states post about walking in to a store and coming out with one lol).

 

[Forkyfinder]

Can I go into an Idaho or SD shop and circumvent the Montana regulations legally?

Dont think theyll sell you one unless you have a sd/id residency or id.

If you brought it back here though, i wouldnt be all that worried about it. How would they enforce it if you moved here? Would a jury of MT residents send you to prison for a glorified gun muffler?

I did find this article. Not sure what we are waiting on.

"If/when this Texas decision becomes finally effective, our AG is prepared to circulate a memo to all Montana county attorneys and prosecutors announcing that these orphaned Montana laws are unenforceable. Stay tuned for that."

Future is uncertain following court ruling on firearm accessories

Yesterday, a federal court in Texas ruled it unconstitutional for suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) to be included in the National Firearms Act (NFA), which requires registration.

www.livingstonenterprise.com

 

[brymoore]

Can I sell a used suppressor in Idaho? I think so.