Michigan Suppressors After the 2026 NFA Ruling: What Gun Owners Need to Know

If you own or are considering purchasing a suppressor in Michigan, you have probably seen the headlines about the recent federal court ruling involving the National Firearms Act.

Updated August 21, 2026

Vector silhouette map of State of Michigan. Simple map of American state.

The seven-day stay on the court’s injunction has expired, and the first suppressor transfers covered by the injunction have reportedly taken place without Form 4 approval or federal NFA registration.

That naturally raises an important question for Michigan gun owners:

Can Michigan residents now purchase a suppressor without going through the traditional NFA approval process?

Not necessarily. While the recent federal court ruling has significantly changed the federal NFA landscape, Michigan has its own statute governing suppressors, and the interaction between the federal ruling and Michigan law is not yet fully settled.

The Ruling Is Not Necessarily the Final Word

Although the seven-day period for the Department of Justice to seek an emergency stay has expired and the injunction is currently in effect for those covered by the court’s order, the case is not necessarily over.

According to current guidance from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the Department of Justice still has until October 5, 2026, to appeal the final judgment or seek a stay while an appeal proceeds.

That means the legal landscape could change again.

An appeal could challenge the court’s ruling, seek to narrow its scope, or ultimately result in a different outcome. Until the appeal period has passed, and potentially while any appeal is being litigated, there remains significant uncertainty about the long-term status of the court’s decision.

For Michigan gun owners, this is another reason not to assume that the current federal injunction permanently eliminates the traditional NFA process.

Michigan Law Still Matters

Michigan law specifically addresses mufflers and silencers under MCL 750.224.

The statute generally prohibits the manufacture, sale, offering for sale or possession of a muffler or silencer, subject to specific exceptions contained in Michigan law.

One of those exceptions applies to a person licensed by the federal government to manufacture, sell or possess the device.

That creates an important question following the federal court ruling:

If federal law no longer requires ATF registration or approval for a particular suppressor transaction, does that transaction still satisfy Michigan’s separate statutory exception?

That is an important question for Michigan dealers and gun owners.

The federal ruling did not strike down Michigan’s statute.

The Federal Injunction Does Not Automatically Change Michigan Law

The federal court ruling concerns the federal government’s enforcement of certain NFA provisions.

It does not invalidate state firearms statutes.

That means Michigan’s existing laws remain relevant even where a particular transaction may be protected under the federal injunction.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation has specifically reminded the firearms industry that state laws continue to apply and that the effect of the federal injunction depends on the wording of each state’s individual laws.

In some states, state law specifically references federal NFA registration or compliance. In others, the language is different.

That makes it important to distinguish between what federal law currently allows for a protected transaction and what Michigan law independently requires. The federal injunction does not eliminate or override an independent requirement imposed by Michigan law. If Michigan law requires compliance with federal NFA registration or otherwise restricts possession of a suppressor, the federal court’s ruling does not automatically invalidate that state requirement.

The federal injunction does not eliminate or override an independent requirement imposed by Michigan law. If Michigan law requires compliance with federal NFA registration or otherwise restricts possession of a suppressor, the federal court’s ruling does not automatically invalidate that state requirement.

Who Is Actually Protected by the Federal Injunction?

Another important point is that the federal injunction is not a blanket exemption for every firearm owner.

The injunction applies to the named plaintiffs and qualifying members and customers covered by the court’s judgment.

That means simply being a Michigan resident does not make someone a beneficiary of the injunction.

Likewise, seeing an article online, belonging to an organization or presenting a membership card does not automatically establish that a particular transaction is covered.

The exact organization, customer, dealer, firearm and transaction can matter.

What About Form 4s?

For qualifying transactions covered by the federal injunction, certain NFA Form 4 registration and transfer approval requirements have been enjoined.

However, that does not mean a suppressor transaction becomes completely paperwork-free.

The Gun Control Act was not enjoined.

A qualifying transaction still requires the applicable Form 4473 and background check, along with the other federal firearms recordkeeping and marking requirements that remain in effect.

So even under the federal injunction, “no Form 4” does not mean “no paperwork.”

Why Red Circle Tactical Is Continuing the Existing Process

At this point, there are still too many unanswered questions for us to change our established Michigan suppressor procedures based solely on the federal ruling.

Among the issues that remain important are:

How the federal injunction interacts with Michigan’s suppressor statute.
Whether a particular customer is actually protected.
Whether a particular transaction qualifies.
How affected suppressors should move through the manufacturer, distributor and dealer chain.
What records should be maintained.
How an unregistered suppressor should be handled if it later crosses state lines.
What happens if the firearm is sent out for repair.
How a dealer would document the legal basis for the transaction years later.
Whether additional federal or state guidance changes the analysis.

These are not questions we believe should be answered at the gun counter by a customer, a social-media post or an internet article.

What Is Red Circle Tactical Doing?

For now, Red Circle Tactical is continuing to follow the established NFA process for suppressor transfers in Michigan.

We are closely monitoring the federal litigation, NSSF guidance, ATF developments and any additional information concerning Michigan law.

We recognize that the federal ruling could ultimately result in a significant change in how suppressors are transferred.

But until we can verify that a particular transaction satisfies both federal and Michigan law, we will continue using the established process.

That isn’t ignoring the court ruling.

It is making sure we understand exactly what the ruling means before putting a customer or our FFL at risk.

What Should Michigan Customers Do?

If you are considering purchasing a suppressor, don’t assume that the federal headlines mean you can immediately take one home without a Form 4 in Michigan.

If you have questions about a particular transaction, we’re happy to discuss the current process with you.

However, we cannot currently offer a no-Form-4 transfer based solely on a customer’s membership in an organization, an internet article or another dealer’s transaction.

The federal situation is still developing, and additional guidance could change the process.

NSSF has also noted that many questions remain unanswered regarding how the federal injunction interacts with state laws that regulate suppressors. For Michigan gun owners, that distinction is especially important. A transaction may be protected from certain federal NFA requirements while still raising separate questions under Michigan law.

What Happens Next?

The current situation is still developing.

The Department of Justice declined to seek an emergency stay, allowing the injunction to take effect for the parties and transactions covered by the court’s order. However, the DOJ still has until October 5, 2026, to appeal or seek a stay of the final judgment.

At the same time, NSSF has requested additional guidance from ATF so that FFLs can better understand how to comply with the court’s ruling.

At the state level, questions concerning Michigan’s own suppressor law remain important regardless of what happens with the federal litigation.

In other words, the fact that the injunction is currently in effect does not mean the legal questions surrounding suppressor transfers are permanently settled.

We will continue monitoring the federal case, ATF guidance and developments concerning Michigan law.

If the situation changes in a way that allows us to safely and lawfully streamline suppressor transfers in Michigan, we will adjust our procedures accordingly.

The Bottom Line for Michigan Gun Owners

The federal NFA ruling is a major development.

But it does not automatically eliminate Michigan’s suppressor laws, and it does not mean every Michigan resident can simply bypass the traditional NFA process.

For now, Red Circle Tactical will continue following the established NFA transfer process while we monitor the situation.

When something changes that we can actually act on, we’ll let you know.

This article is provided for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. Federal and state firearms laws are subject to change, and individual circumstances can affect the legality of a particular firearm or transaction. Customers with questions about their specific circumstances should consult qualified legal counsel.

A Major Change to the NFA: What the August 2026 Federal Court Ruling Means for Suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs

Updated August 21, 2026

Latest Update: NSSF has issued additional guidance clarifying the limited scope of the federal injunction and the federal requirements that remain in effect. The Department of Justice still has until October 5, 2026, to appeal or seek a stay of the final judgment. Significant questions also remain regarding SBRs, SBSs, interstate transportation, dealer procedures and the transfer of affected NFA firearms through the commercial supply chain.

A major federal court ruling has significantly changed the landscape surrounding the National Firearms Act, but the practical effect of the decision is more complicated than many headlines suggest.

SilencerCo_Osprey_.45 — SilencerCo Osprey .45 suppressor on a Springfield pistol. Image by DickClarkMises, Wikimedia Commons, CC0.

If you own or have considered purchasing a suppressor, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or Any Other Weapon, you have probably seen the headlines this week.

The ruling affects federal registration and approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and, under more limited circumstances, Any Other Weapons.

The seven-day stay on the court’s injunction has expired, and the injunction is now in effect according to its terms. Two Texas suppressor transfers have also reportedly been completed without Form 4 approval or federal NFA registration under circumstances covered by the injunction.

So, are suppressors now simply “cash and carry”?

No. Not for everyone, and not everywhere.

The court’s decision is significant, but there are still substantial questions about who is protected, what transactions are covered, how dealers should document those transactions, and how federal and state laws interact.

What Did the Court Actually Decide?

In Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, consolidated with Jensen v. ATF, a federal court in the Northern District of Texas ruled that certain NFA registration and making/transfer approval requirements could no longer be enforced against parties protected by the injunction.

The ruling addresses suppressors, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns. The injunction also addresses AOWs, but the protection for AOWs is narrower and applies only to certain plaintiffs.

The underlying issue involves the fact that Congress reduced the NFA’s $200 making and transfer tax on suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs to zero dollars beginning in 2026. The court concluded that the federal government’s continued use of registration and related requirements for these untaxed items could no longer be justified as an exercise of Congress’s taxing authority.

That is a major constitutional ruling.

But it is important to understand what it does not mean.

The court did not repeal the entire National Firearms Act. It did not eliminate every NFA requirement. And it did not issue a blanket authorization allowing every firearms dealer and every customer in the country to ignore the traditional NFA process.

The Ruling Is Not Necessarily the Final Word

The injunction is currently in effect for the parties and transactions covered by the court’s order. The Department of Justice did not seek an emergency stay, allowing the seven-day stay to expire.

But the case is not necessarily over.

According to current guidance from the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the DOJ still has until October 5, 2026, to appeal the final judgment or seek a stay while an appeal proceeds.

That means the legal landscape could change again. The scope of the injunction could be challenged, narrowed or otherwise modified as the case moves forward.

For customers and dealers, this is another reason to distinguish between what the court has currently enjoined and what has been permanently settled.

Who Is Actually Covered by the Injunction?

This is one of the most important parts of the ruling.

The injunction is limited to the plaintiffs, their qualifying current and future members, and, in the case of commercial plaintiffs or commercial members of plaintiff organizations, their current and future customers in covered transactions.

The plaintiffs include organizations and businesses such as Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Silencer Shop Foundation, Palmetto State Armory and others involved in the litigation.

The case also includes several states as plaintiffs.

However, being a resident of one of those plaintiff states does not automatically make every citizen of that state a beneficiary of the injunction.

For an individual who is not a named plaintiff, coverage can depend upon membership in one of the organizations specifically covered by the judgment and the nature of the transaction.

There are also important differences among the plaintiff organizations. For example, NSSF’s current guidance notes that AOW protection does not extend to members of some of the organizations in the same way it does to suppressors, SBRs and SBSs.

In other words:

Membership, customer status, the particular firearm and the parties involved can all matter.

A customer simply showing a membership card or pointing to an article online does not establish that a particular transaction is protected.

What Happens to the Form 4?

For qualifying transactions covered by the injunction, the federal NFA Form 4 registration and transfer approval requirements that were enjoined by the court do not apply in the same manner.

This is the part of the ruling that has generated the most attention.

Two Texas suppressor transfers were reportedly completed without Form 4 applications or NFA registration after the injunction took effect.

But that does not mean that all paperwork disappears.

The Form 4473 Still Applies

The court did not enjoin the Gun Control Act.

That means suppressors and other affected firearms transferred under the injunction remain subject to applicable GCA requirements, including the federal firearms transaction recordkeeping requirements and background-check requirements.

A qualifying no-Form-4 suppressor transaction is therefore not a transaction with no paperwork.

The customer still needs to complete the applicable Form 4473, and the dealer must comply with the applicable background-check, recordkeeping and marking requirements.

That distinction is important.

What About SBRs and SBSs?

This is where things become even more complicated.

Although the court enjoined certain NFA registration and transfer provisions involving SBRs and SBSs, another federal statute remains in place.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4), a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer or collector generally cannot sell or deliver a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity.

NFA compliance has historically provided the mechanism for that authorization.

The court did not enjoin § 922(b)(4).

As a result, the current practical situation for SBR and SBS transfers remains significantly more complicated than simply saying “the Form 4 is gone.”

Until ATF establishes another mechanism for satisfying that requirement, the existing NFA process remains the only identified avenue for complying with this requirement when transferring an SBR or SBS.

Suppressors and SBRs/SBSs should not simply be lumped together as though the ruling affects them identically.

AOWs Are Different Again

The court also addressed AOWs, but the injunction’s protection is narrower.

The NFA’s AOW provisions were enjoined only with respect to certain Silencer Shop plaintiffs.

NSSF’s current guidance specifically notes that members of some of the other plaintiff organizations do not receive the same AOW protection.

So if you are dealing with an AOW, the exact plaintiff organization, membership and transaction matter even more.

Important Federal Requirements Were Not Enjoined

There are several federal provisions that remain a significant concern.

One of the most important is 26 U.S.C. § 5861(j) and (k).

The court did not enjoin these provisions.

Among other things, § 5861(j) addresses transporting, delivering or receiving an NFA firearm in interstate commerce when it has not been registered as required by the NFA.

That creates major unanswered questions.

For example, what happens if someone legally acquires an unregistered suppressor under the injunction and later:

Moves to another state?
Takes the suppressor across state lines?
Ships it for repair?
Sends it to another dealer?
Transfers it to another person?
Attempts to re-import it after taking it outside the United States?

The court’s ruling does not provide simple answers to all of these situations.

This is one reason dealers and customers should not assume that an unregistered suppressor acquired under the injunction can subsequently be treated exactly like an ordinary GCA firearm in every circumstance.

These questions could affect situations that might otherwise seem routine, including moving to another state, taking an affected firearm across state lines for a hunting trip, or sending it out of state for repair. The fact that an item was lawfully acquired under the injunction does not necessarily answer whether it can later be transported or transferred across state lines.

The SOT Requirement Has Not Disappeared

The Special Occupational Tax regime for FFLs involved in the manufacture, importation or dealing of NFA firearms was also not eliminated by the ruling.

Congress did not reduce those taxes to zero in the same way it reduced the NFA making and transfer taxes.

That leaves additional questions concerning how manufacturers, distributors and dealers should handle affected NFA firearms, particularly when moving inventory through the commercial chain.

There are also unresolved questions about how an NFA firearm currently appearing in the NFRTR could be removed from the registry without the traditional Form 4 process.

These are practical issues that matter to dealers long after the initial sale.

State Laws Still Apply

The federal injunction does not invalidate state firearms laws.

This is particularly important because states take different approaches to suppressors and other NFA firearms.

Some state laws specifically reference federal NFA registration or compliance. Others use different language.

Consequently, a firearm that may be lawfully transferred under the federal injunction could still raise a separate state-law question.

Federal legality and state legality are not necessarily the same thing.

Customers should not assume that a federal court ruling automatically changes the law in their state.

What Does This Mean for Customers?

The most important thing for customers to understand is that the headline is not the whole story.

The federal court ruling is real and significant.

For certain protected parties and qualifying transactions, the traditional NFA registration and approval requirements have been enjoined.

But that does not mean every customer can walk into every dealer and purchase a suppressor without a Form 4.

It does not mean the Form 4473 and background check disappear.

It does not eliminate state law.

It does not automatically resolve interstate transportation.

And it does not provide a simple answer for every type of NFA firearm.

What Does This Mean for FFLs?

For dealers, the situation requires even more caution.

Before changing established NFA procedures, a dealer needs to know:

Whether the dealer is protected by the injunction.
Whether the customer is protected.
Whether the transaction qualifies.
Whether the specific firearm is covered.
What forms and records are required.
How the transaction should be documented.
How inventory should move through the manufacturer/distributor/dealer chain.
How state law applies.
How future interstate transportation or transfer will be handled.
How the dealer can demonstrate years later why the transaction was lawful.

NSSF has requested additional guidance from ATF specifically so FFLs can better understand how to remain compliant.

Until that guidance is available, dealers should be extremely cautious about changing established procedures based solely on customer requests, social-media posts or promotional claims.

What Is Red Circle Tactical Doing?

At Red Circle Tactical, we are closely monitoring the court ruling, the NSSF guidance and any additional information from ATF and the courts.

The ruling is clearly significant, and we are not dismissing its potential impact on suppressors and other NFA firearms.

At the same time, we are not going to put our CUSTOMERS or our FFL at risk by guessing at unresolved federal or state requirements.

For now, we will continue following our established NFA procedures unless and until we have sufficient verified guidance to determine that a different procedure can be used lawfully and properly documented.

If that changes, we’ll adjust our procedures.

What Happens Next?

The injunction is currently in effect for the parties and transactions covered by the court’s order, but the legal battle is not necessarily over.

The Department of Justice declined to seek an emergency stay, allowing the injunction to take effect. However, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s August 17 guidance, DOJ still has until October 5, 2026, to appeal or seek a stay of the final judgment.

NSSF has also requested that ATF issue guidance to help FFLs understand how to comply with the ruling. Until that guidance is available, significant questions remain regarding dealer procedures, interstate transportation, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs and the movement of affected NFA firearms through the commercial supply chain.

The Bottom Line

The 2026 NFA ruling is one of the most significant developments in federal firearms law in decades.

But it is not as simple as “the NFA is gone.”

The court has enjoined specific NFA provisions for specific protected parties and transactions. Other federal laws remain in effect. The GCA still applies. The SOT system remains. Interstate transportation raises unresolved questions. And state laws have not disappeared.

There is still more to come.

The Department of Justice has until October 5, 2026, to appeal or seek a stay of the final judgment, according to current NSSF guidance.

Until then, this remains a rapidly developing area of firearms law.

We will continue watching it and will update our customers as verified information becomes available.

This article is provided for general informational purposes and is not legal advice. Federal and state firearms laws are subject to change, and individual circumstances can affect the legality of a particular firearm or transaction. Dealers and customers with questions about their specific circumstances should consult qualified legal counsel.

BATFE ANNOUNCES LAUNCH OF CLOUD BASED EFORMS

The BATE announced that they are (finally) launching their new cloud-based eForms platform this month (December 2021).

As stated by the BATFE:

“The goal of this ‘modernized eForms’ is to provide ATF with an infusion of technology to provide better services to our industry members, trade associations, and the public. This much needed modernization will reduce the effort and time required to review and process applications. Specifically, ATF Forms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6A, 9, 10 and 5300.11, by incorporating online validations and other enhancements.”

Finally, the electronic Form 4 is back!

Based on our understanding of the new process, unlike a paper Form4, with an eForm4, multiple BATFE and FBI agents will be able to work on the eForm4 concurrently instead of only one at a time.

Typically a paper from 4 is touched around 40 different times during the approval process and it has to wait until the previous agent is done with a step until the next step can begin. This should speed the process.

Hopefully this will impact wait times in a positive manner.

More to come as we learn more.

Update:

The ATF has supplied this information to us:

eForms upgrade start: Friday, December 17 at 9 p.m.
eForms tentative upgrade finish: Tuesday, December 21 at 6 a.m.

The web address of eForms is not changing.

Your eForms User ID is not changing. All your previous submissions will transfer to the new system.

After the upgrade, you’ll need to manually reset your password before you can log in for the first time.

Once you log in with your new password, the system will ask you to update your user profile information and create a security PIN.

Another Update:

This is a notice to current eForms users about a change in the outage period for the upgrade to ATF eForms.
The tentative finish date is now Thursday, December 23 at 6 a.m. ET.
No action is needed at this time. However, there are some required steps you’ll need to complete after the upgrade is finished (details below).

Update: Outage period
In order to facilitate this upgrade, eForms is offline during the following time frame:
Upgrade Start: Friday, December 17 at 9 p.m.
Tentative Finish: Thursday, December 23 at 6 a.m.
If the outage window will impact business operations, paper submissions of forms will always still be an option during this period.

Uninformed US Senators Sponsor Anti-Silencer Bill

You have to love it when our elected officials make decisions and author bills without a complete understanding of the topic at hand.

They want to ban silencers as they think only criminals own them. I guess around 500,000 people who own them legally are criminals.

The “Help Empower Americans to Respond Act of 2019” or the “HEAR Act” aims to outlaw legal ownership of silencers (except the usual exceptions of law enforcement and the government).

I suggest reading any of these articles to learn more about this bill and see the ignorance with your own eyes. How do these people get elected?

https://www.guns.com/news/2019/06/24/lawmaker-moves-to-outlaw-suppressors-authorize-buy-back

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/bethbaumann/2019/06/24/gun-owners-prepare-to-fight-dems-are-not-surprisingly-moving-to-ban-suppresso-n2548870

https://reason.com/2019/06/25/backers-of-a-federal-ban-on-gun-silencers-claim-only-criminals-use-them/?mc_cid=2783e3dbec&mc_eid=90361d3247