PSA customers: qualification matters. 🇺🇸 For the SBR process explained in this video: • Current GOA member • Qualifying firearm from PSA • State/local law allows the configuration and other federal laws followed Individual components alone do NOT make an otherwise unrelated firearm qualify. For qualifying firearms and customers,... the ruling changes the challenged Form 1 process discussed in the video. Watch before making configuration changes. Not legal advice. State/local laws apply. If you have questions, consult an attorney. Gun Owners of Americashow more

GOA claims its unconstitutional. If I'm legally able to possess a firearm, the requirement of being a member of an organization and customer to be able to suddenly own an SBR is stupid. It's a small win in a broken legal system. Give it time and the left will erode it again.

This video describes one potential way in which you could qualify for the injunction's protection. As stated in the video, just make sure you qualify for the injunction's protection before you reconfigure your firearm and confirm you are allowed to do so under state and local law. There are also still many open questions, including questions regarding marking requirements, transportation across state lines, and transfers to others. Know and understand all applicable laws BEFORE reconfiguring your firearm. This is for your own protection. We cannot provide you with legal advice. Check with an attorney if you have any questions.

What a joke . If something is UNCONSTITUTIONAL in north Texas, it should be unconstitutional everywhere, WITHOUT LIMITS.

To everyone bitching that this decision only covers PSA, GOA, FPC and other plaintiffs (for now): it covers them first because they actually got off their asses and sued. Maybe do something instead of complaining about those who do.

PSA is lying when they say it has to be a PSA product, lmao The only reason they supported this lawsuit was so they could try to sell more shit by lying and saying it had to be from them. If you are a GOA member it applies to you.

"Shall not be infringed" does not have all these bullshit convoluted rules and subtleties. You now get to decide if you want to be pussies waiting for big daddy Gov to tell you your 2A rights are ok, or man up and show them not to fuck with our 2A rights

You guys have done a lot but this feels like it’s just further diverging national/federal / state level haves and have nots. This is why I’m generally against any sort of exception to laws for LEO and former Mil. They tend to no longer have any skin in the game and don’t care about what happens to others. They got theirs. While the centers of gun control have been steadily eroded over the years, there is a lot to go. I’m still excited for everyone because the last few years have been more progress than I expected. There’s hope.

I get this is a win, but having to be both a member and a customer is BS.

Can only do it if we pay a monthly subscription and purchase from a particular company? Sounds kinda sus, fam.

So basically, the laws just got more convoluted.

Serial number and marking requirements were not enjoined. The maker identification requirement at 26 U.S.C. § 5842(a) and 27 C.F.R. § 479.102 was not enjoined as to anyone. A state’s participation as a plaintiff in the lawsuit concerns the federal government’s enforcement against that state’s own agencies. It does not change that state’s own law as applied to its residents. Some of those states that were plaintiffs in the lawsuit have laws that still require NFA registration to own a suppressor or SBR

I’d like someone to explain how the NFA was declared unconstitutional only if I bought it from PSA and a GOA member… what clause in constitution lists those two organizations?

Lmao, I've bought basically everything from PSA and I'm a GOA member. I'm golden.

What stipulations in the case require the firearm to be from PSA? As a GOA member why, if I can manufacture an NFA without a form 1 now (ie a suppressor), does where the hardware come from matter? Do I need to source my pla from PSA?

It’s confusing. According to Silencer Shop, SBR’s are covered under the gun control act and still require a form 4.

This sounds like a scam for @GunOwners to to get rich off of, if we have to be a member for this to take effect. . Y'all are just as bad as this crooked government.. if its unconstitutional please tell me why I have to pay u for me to be legal. . Dumb ass mother fuckers

Now let’s be honest and let people know that no dealer is going to give you a can on just a 4473 until the ATF explicitly tells them they can

This video is taking an extremely narrow view of the order, which holds the ATF and DOJ are “permanently enjoined from enforcing the challenged NFA provisions as to untaxed firearms against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, the plaintiffs’ agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers—both current and future.” It’s not necessary to be both a PSA customer AND a GOA member. Nor is it necessary to have purchased the firearm from PSA. (Not legal advice)

I don't believe this is accurate. You don't need to be doubly covered. The provisions are enjoined for GOA members. They're enjoined for PSA customers. It's not phrased to only be enjoined for GOA members who are also PSA customers. Though, one may want to make the engravings if they SBR/SBS.

Every company who was apart of the lawsuit is going to boom in business. With all the back patting and requirements it looks like some orchestrated scheme to run up sales.

Does building a stripped lower from PSA into an SBR count or does it have to be a complete firearm?

I've been a GOA member for years but this is bullshit. Nobody needs to join a club to be free. To hell with these corrupt courtrooms. We need a Tax Revolt. Live free or die! @Rep_Clyde @RepThomasMassie @GunOwners @mtgreenee @TuckerCarlson @TheAKGuy

Confused why I need to be a GOA member?

All you cockfags complaining should be thanking PSA and GOA for funding this legal battle. Step in the right direction. That said, all gun laws are unconstitutional, so do what you want anyway.

I love you guys, but this is horribly misleading. Just being a GOA member allows the creation/manufacture of what would have otherwise been a suppressor/SBR/SBS Form 1 item. With the caveat of not being barred by local/state restrictions or being a prohibited person of course.

Sooo... my Squirrel 15? The PSA lower is the registered firearm.

That's phrased wrong.. It's not buying from psa AND being a goa member. If you're a goa member, you can make your own sbr from a pistol you bought from wherever. Or, if you live in one of the states that participated in the lawsuit.

Does it have to be the whole gun, or just the lower?

So we have to join? This is just as invasive. THIS IS AMERICA, FREE MEN DO NOT ASK FOR PERMISSION FOR ANYTHING.

This has to be the dumbest shit Ive ever heard of. How can the court ruling only apply to certain people and not anyone. GTFOOH

You don’t need to be a GOA member. PSA is a named party. As long as I am your customer shouldn’t I be good? And why do I physically have to buy In your store? Seems like you are enforcing unnecessary unrequired steps.

So most likely my unbuilt PSA lower that was going to be a pistol can be made into an SBR instead? Hopefully soon we will get some firm guidance on this so we are not in limbo.

@AustinDavisPA why are we still being treated like criminals? we are free men. as law abiding citizens we should be able to own and bare the firearms we want without fear of persecution.

Isn't South Carolina also s plaintiff? Doesn't that make all South Carolinians eligible without having a GOA membership?

So a complete lower assembly from PSA is a firearm by definition?