Buckeye Firearms Association

AK-47 - a history of practical design that still matters

SHummel — Fri, 28 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Ryan Hodges, AmmoLand

Firearms that have reshaped history share a common trait — they solved a problem. Whether it was the need for a more powerful cartridge, faster production, increased reliability, or easier field maintenance, these guns aimed to be the pinnacle of their design. Among them, one rifle stands out as the most widespread, recognizable, and culturally significant: the AK-47.

But how did this rifle transform 20th-century warfare, and why does it remain relevant today?

A rifle born from war

The story of the AK-47 begins with two pivotal moments in World War II. The first was the introduction of the first truly successful “assault rifle,” the Sturmgewehr 44 (StG 44). Before its development, German infantry carried a mix of bolt-action rifles and submachine guns — each effective in its role, but neither ideal for modern combat. Full-power rifles offered range and velocity but were slow and often overpowered for typical engagement distances. Submachine guns gave mobility and fire rate but lacked accuracy and range. The German solution combined an intermediate cartridge (7.92×33mm Kurz) with a select-fire rifle, allowing controllable automatic fire at practical range.

On the ballot: 2026 BFA-PAC Grades and Endorsements for Ohio General Election

The Germans produced the StG 44, and the Soviets captured examples during and after the war. These rifles showed them the potential of the intermediate-cartridge concept, prompting development of their own version.

The second key moment occurred on the Soviet side. Mikhail Kalashnikov, a young tank commander, was wounded during the German invasion in 1941. During recovery, he focused on improving the small arms issued to Soviet troops. Kalashnikov was part of a broader Soviet design system, but he distinguished himself by prioritizing function over refinement. He aimed for a rifle that was simple, reliable, easy to manufacture, and chambered in an intermediate cartridge.

The Soviet-designed 7.62x39mm cartridge, first used in the SKS carbine and RPD light machine gun, proved ideal. It balanced recoil, range, and reliability in a select-fire platform. After years of development and trials against competing designs, Kalashnikov’s rifle was selected.

Officially introduced in 1947 as the Avtomat Kalashnikova, it simply became known as the AK-47.

Built to work

The qualities that set the AK-47 apart then are the same that drive its global dominance today. Kalashnikov’s philosophy emphasized simplicity and durability. Using a long-stroke gas piston with generous internal clearances, the AK-47 runs reliably under extreme conditions. Dirt, debris, fouling, water, or mud — where finely machined rifles might fail, the AK continues to function. It does not rely on ideal conditions or meticulous maintenance. When maintenance is needed, the rifle field-strips into just eight core components. Soldiers can do this without tools, and even an inexperienced user can learn quickly. The AK demands little from its operator — and that’s exactly why it works.

Early production models of the AK-47 had milled receivers. Later evolutions, like the AKM and AK-74, switched to stamped receivers. This change lowered cost and simplified mass production without sacrificing reliability.

Cold War icon

World War II gave birth to the AK-47, but the Cold War elevated it to global prominence. The Soviet Union and its allies saw widespread armament as essential. The AK-47 proved ideal. Millions were produced and distributed to communist allies, including China, North Korea, and Warsaw Pact nations. The Soviets shared manufacturing specifications, allowing these countries to produce their own variants. Its simple design let even nations with limited industrial capacity manufacture AK-pattern rifles, fueling massive proliferation.

The Vietnam War further cemented the AK-47’s reputation. U.S. forces carried the M16 rifle, which initially struggled in the harsh jungle. It required consistent cleaning and maintenance. In contrast, AK-47s kept functioning with minimal upkeep. That contrast reinforced the AK’s legendary reliability.

Global spread and symbolism

In later decades, the AK continued to spread. During the Soviet-Afghan War, both sides used the rifle. After the Soviet Union collapsed, massive stockpiles of arms — many of which were AKs — were lost, sold, or redistributed. These rifles flowed into Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia, adopted by militaries, militias, and insurgent groups. Over time, the AK-47 became more than a weapon — it became a symbol of revolution, even appearing on Mozambique’s national flag.

Perfectly imperfect

The AK-47 remains one of the most relevant firearm designs in the world. Modern platforms like the AR-15 excel in accuracy, modularity, and ergonomics, but the AK’s core principles endure. With over 100 million rifles and variants produced, it still sees active use worldwide.

The AK prioritizes reliability and ease of manufacturing over precision. It wasn’t designed to be perfect — it was designed to work, and to keep working under harsh conditions. That mindset still shapes modern firearms, especially military and defensive rifles where durability and simplicity are benchmarks. The AK-47 didn’t just change how rifles were used — it changed how they were built.

For the modern shooter, the AK-47 is both a historical artifact and a practical tool. Its unmistakable profile, mechanical simplicity, and legendary reliability make it one of the most recognizable and widely used rifles ever created. Even today, it’s what many people picture when they think of a rifle. The AK-47 didn’t become the most widespread rifle because it was the most advanced — it did so because it was the most practical. Decades later, that practicality is exactly why it still matters.

Republished with permission from AmmoLand.

South Carolina store clerk wins slow race to self-defense

SHummel — Thu, 27 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Rob Morse, SlowFacts

A store clerk in Florence, South Carolina was being robbed at gunpoint when his actions saved lives. The story is rare because you or I will probably never be in that situation. The story is ordinary because we’ve seen so many stories like this happen time after time. This is what happened earlier this month, and this is what we can learn.

We know a few facts from the news reports. The armed robbery took place on a weekday night. The robber walked into the smoke shop at about 10:15 p.m. He was armed and carrying a handgun in his hand. He was wearing a mask over his face. The robber threatened to shoot the store clerk. The robber demanded cash from the cash register. Thus far, the robber, Raheem Raykwain Brantley, 23, thought he was in control of what happened that night. He was right — until the clerk changed everything.

Here in Ohio: 2026 BFA-PAC Grades and Endorsements for General Election

The robber was stuffing cash into a bag when the store clerk “grabbed a gun” and shot the attacker several times. The attacker ran from the store. The store clerk remained at the scene. The clerk called 911 and asked for help. Police found the robber behind the store. A handgun was next to the robber when the police found him. The robber was dead when police arrived.

The defender had a lot to do before the first shot was fired. To start, the defender recognized that he had a dangerous job. This was the third vape shop robbed in Florence, South Carolina in the last 48 months. There are over a million violent crimes each year. The defender decided that he should go armed at work. When the robber walked into the vape shop, the clerk was mentally prepared. He recognized an immediate, unavoidable, and lethal threat to his life or the life of innocent customers. The defender knew when to act and he knew what to do.

The defender had the right to use lethal force, but he had the wisdom to avoid a gunfight. Bullets go both ways in a gunfight. The store clerk waited his turn so that he would be involved in a defensive shooting where bullets were going one way.

It won’t surprise you that the robber had a criminal history. It looks like the dead robber’s brother was also a criminal involved with illegal firearms and armed robbery. It looks like the defender lied to police as his brother was wanted by police. It looks like the robber was a runaway from the Carolina Youth Development Center in North Charleston.

There are other facts that are not available from the news reports. We know what we’d like to do even if we don’t know what the defender was forced to do in this case. It is best practice to have the gun on your body. Please consider how you would feel if the other store clerk behind the counter was being robbed at gunpoint while you were disarmed because you were restocking the shelves. It is best practice to have the firearm on your body and concealed.

You will do much better in your physical defense and in your legal defense if you think about what to do and when to do it. Shoot your firearm frequently enough so you recognize your opportunity to defend yourself. You save a half second on presenting your firearm if you slowly lower your arm and put it on your gun while half your body is hidden behind the stack of junk food. Criminals have put their gun or knife on the counter when they needed to hold the sack while they grabbed money from the cash drawer. That is called a clue.. if you’re wise enough to take the hint. YES, you can shoot a robber who put his firearm on the counter while he was robbing you.

The more you study the smarter you act. The only reason you would use lethal force on your attacker is because he posed a lethal threat. You shoot your attacker because that is the safest thing to do. Keep shooting until the threat is gone. That means they are either incapable of hurting you and other innocent parties, or they have run away and you don’t have a target that needs to be shot.

Call police. Have the address posted where you can read it because your brain will have a hard time answering questions. It is easier to read than to think.
Give the police a copy of the surveillance video.
Call your lawyer. Your lawyer get the original video.
Talk to your lawyer and have him provide your official statement to the police.
Have a safety plan with the other employees about how to respond to a robbery or accident.

Note that the robber practiced being a criminal. He hung around with other people who practiced being criminals. That means you have to practice too. Practice being a defender.

It is a shame that the robber died. It would be even worse if the armed robber injured one of his innocent victims.

Rob Morse writes about gun rights at his SlowFacts blog and hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society podcast.

WATCH: Vivek Ramaswamy speech at BFA 2026 Patriot Fest

SHummel — Wed, 26 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000

2026 Ohio gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, endorsed by Buckeye Firearms Association-PAC, speaks during BFA's inaugural Patriot Fest on Aug. 22, 2026, at The Makoy in Hilliard, Ohio. Introducing Ramaswamy is his wife, Apoorva Ramaswamy.

Watch: Ramaswamy calls raffle winner of his donated SIG MCX-SPEAR LT 5.56 at BFA Patriot Fest

SHummel — Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:54:57 +0000

Watch Ohio's next governor, Vivek Ramaswamy, announce the winner of the SIG Sauer MCX-SPEAR LT 5.56 he donated for the Buckeye Firearms Association's inaugural Patriot Fest at the Makoy in Hilliard on Aug. 22.

The rifle, valued at $2,600, was won by Newton Hughes, who went up on stage, where the pair held the rifle over their heads in Charlton Heston "from my cold, dead hands" style. In the background is BFA legal counsel Sean Maloney.

Federal district judge rules Biden-era frame-and-receiver rule unconstitutional

SHummel — Mon, 24 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Second Amendment Foundation

A judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled Aug. 17 in favor of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Defense Distributed in Defense Distributed v. Blanche (formerly VanDerStok v. Bondi), holding the ATF’s “Frame or Receiver” Rule, which expanded the definition of a “firearm,” unconstitutional on both Second Amendment and due process grounds.

In April 2022, under the Biden administration, the ATF published its rule amending the regulatory definition of “firearm” to encompass partially manufactured firearm frames and receivers. In seeking to regulate these “non-firearm objects” the ATF’s rule impermissibly infringed on the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to personally manufacture and gunsmith firearms, as well as establishing a convoluted and opaque set of non-exclusive “factors” that informed when an inert piece of raw material became a “firearm” under federal law.

Here in Ohio: 2026 BFA-PAC Grades and Endorsements for the Ohio General Election

The court declared the rule unconstitutional as applied to all SAF members and issued a permanent injunction protecting Defense Distributed and current and future Second Amendment Foundation members as it relates to the specific gun kits involved in the case. SAF and its partners filed for a motion summary judgment in April of this year, which today, the court granted.

“This rule was such a mess that it not only violated the Second Amendment but was so terribly drafted that it managed to be ruled unconstitutionally vague,” said SAF executive director Adam Kraut. “The court rightly held that the Biden ATF’s rule not only sought to outright prohibit Second Amendment protected conduct but was written in such a vague and vaporous manner as to chill that protected conduct by making it impossible to even know what was legal and what wasn’t.”

As the judge stated in the opinion:

“The decision of when a hunk of metal or plastic ‘may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted to function as a frame or receiver’ is left to the subjective determination of the ATF and does not provide fair notice to the reader about when a component becomes subject to enforcement."

"It was obvious from the outset that the Biden ATF’s definition of a ‘firearm’ was intentionally vague and provided no clear guidance to the average law-abiding American as to what was actually legal,” said SAF founder and executive vice president Alan M. Gottlieb. “As it stood previously, the updated definition, in essence, made a law-abiding citizen a criminal for nothing more than owning a piece of plastic that could be converted into a firearm. That isn’t how it works. Congress set the definition, and the ATF can’t unilaterally trump up a revised version to suit their political agenda. The ruling also affirms that you are indeed allowed make firearms in your own home without fear of prosecution.”

Republished with permission from Second Amendment Foundation.

Federal district judge in Illinois: Foster, day care homes are 'sensitive places'

SHummel — Fri, 21 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by John Crump, AmmoLand

A federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division, ruled without trial that foster homes and in-home day care centers are sensitive areas and that guns could be regulated in these private residences.

The case, Miller v. Mueller (18-cv-3085), challenged the Illinois Day Care Home Rule (89 Ill. Admin. Code § 406.8(a)(17)–(18)) and Foster Home Rule (related provisions under 89 Ill. Admin. Code § 402). The Day Care Home Rule prohibited handguns in any home that offers home day care (with limited exceptions for peace officers or certain employment-required possession by residents). Other firearms must be kept disassembled, unloaded, and in locked storage inaccessible to children. Ammunition must be locked separately and inaccessible to children. Parents must be notified of the presence of firearms and ammunition, as well as the storage arrangements. Residents must also display “No Firearms” signs.

2026 General Election: BFA-PAC Candidate Grades and Endorsements

The Foster Home Rule requires that firearms and ammunition be kept locked and inaccessible to children. Loaded guns are generally prohibited (with limited exceptions) within residences. The maximum penalty for violations is license revocation.

Illinois residents and licensed foster parents Jennifer and Darin Miller, joined by the Second Amendment Foundation, Illinois State Rifle Association, and Illinois Carry, sued Heidi Mueller (Acting Director, Illinois DCFS) and Kwame Raoul (Illinois Attorney General). They claimed that the state codes violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the home under Heller and Bruen. Jennifer Miller also runs an in-home day care center, giving her standing to challenge the Day Care Home Rule. The lawsuit was originally filed in 2018. A district court granted summary judgment for the defendants in 2022 (pre-Bruen). The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).

The plaintiffs claimed that the rules could not survive a Bruen analysis. They succeeded at step one because the plain text of the Second Amendment presumptively covers the Millers’ desire to keep firearms operable in their home for self-defense. The judge, Obama-appointed Sue E. Myerscough, however, found that day care homes and foster homes qualify as “sensitive places” analogous to schools (a category Heller and Bruen treat as presumptively lawful for firearm restrictions). She reasoned that both are environments overwhelmingly dominated by children; both involve learning, education, supervision, and skill-building, and both are already subject to extensive state safety regulation precisely because of the presence of children.

The judge wrote:

“The Court finds that the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule, that day care homes and foster homes are sensitive places analogous to schools where firearms may be restricted, and, therefore, that the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule restricting firearms kept in day care homes and foster homes, respectively, are constitutional. The Court also finds that both the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule are reasonable restrictions on government contractors’ and licensees’ assumedly implicated Second Amendment rights.”

Judge Myerscough said the rules are consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation in analogous sensitive places. They impose a comparable burden (not a total ban on possession in the home; limited to the licensed activity; discrete application to a narrow class of licensees/contractors; temporary while the license is held). She said the rules are conditions attached to government licenses (day care) and to government contractor status (foster care).

According to the judge, the government has greater latitude to impose conditions on those who voluntarily seek state benefits or contract with the state, especially when the conditions further the state’s interest in protecting children under its regulatory or custodial responsibility. The judge also said the Millers are not treated as “ordinary” law-abiding citizens in the Heller/Bruen sense because they have voluntarily invited intensive state regulation into their home in exchange for the privilege of providing licensed child care. They remain free to forgo the licenses if they prefer unrestricted firearm possession.

The court upheld both the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule as constitutional under Bruen (sensitive-places analysis + historical tradition) and under the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine. The judge said the restrictions are treated as reasonable, place- and role-based regulations tied to the state’s child-protection responsibilities rather than as general bans on the right to keep arms in the home.

Judge Myerscough’s decision prioritizes the state’s interest in regulated care environments over the full exercise of Second Amendment rights by licensees while they hold those licenses. This decision appears to apply interest balancing, which is explicitly prohibited by the Bruen decision. To many, this is a district court rejecting Supreme Court precedent. More shockingly, the judge ruled without a trial after deciding one was not needed. The plaintiffs are expected to appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

Republished with permission from AmmoLand.

Kamala Harris adopting radical anti-gun agenda for 2028 appeal

SHummel — Thu, 20 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Matt Manda, NSSF

The midterm elections are less than three months away, but the 2028 race for the White House is already shaping up. That’s especially true for Democrats looking to take back 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. after President Donald Trump’s second term concludes.

President Trump has made good on his promises to implement a historically strong pro-Second Amendment, pro-firearm industry agenda that protects and reveres Constitutional rights. That track record is crystal clear to anyone remotely paying attention.

But Democrats are salivating at the chance to retake the Oval Office. That would likely mean picking up the torch on an anti-gun activist agenda right where former President Joe Biden left off, stomping on rights and suffocating the lawful and highly regulated firearm industry that provides law-abiding Americans the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Twenty-six months out, former Vice President Kamala Harris is in the pole position, according to some *very early* polls with an inside track to the nomination. She’s got the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)-inspired agenda to go with it, including hostile and severe gun control schemes once again.

What’s the polling say?

A Rasmussen poll released early this week showed the former vice president with a sizeable lead in the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination contest. Former Vice President Harris currently takes 37 percent of poll responders. Second place honors at this point go to California Gov. Gavin Newsom, another extreme gun control politician, way back at 14%. Former Biden administration Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg takes 10% and U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) garners nine percent.

Here in Ohio: BFA-PAC 2026 Candidate Grades and Endorsements for the General Election

The Rasmussen poll revealed the former vice president has increased her vote share in the last couple of months, when a May poll showed her taking 34%. But different polls show a far different landscape so far out. An AtlasIntel poll, for instance, gave a nearly inverted top four, with Rep. Ocasio-Cortez leading with 26% and followed by former Secretary Buttigieg with 22.4%, Gov. Newsom at 21.2% and the former vice president all the way down at under 13%.

Extreme platform

The former vice president already has the anti-gun, anti-Second Amendment platform and track record to top the political party that wants to abolish gun rights.

Former Vice President Harris infamously led the anti-firearm industry charge by being placed as the leader of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, to take a whole-of-government approach to suffocating industry and stomping on Second Amendment rights. That group apparently directly colluded with John Feinblatt’s Everytown for Gun Safety, within the West Wing, to attack a lawful firearm manufacturer — which U.S. House Judiciary Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Kentucky) is still investigating.

There wasn’t an anti-gun position she didn’t share with former President Biden. There wasn’t a lie she wouldn’t repeat. There was no logical reasoning she could explain to support any of it. There wasn’t a contradiction she wouldn’t make — all in the name of placating and gaining the affections of the most extreme gun control groups in the country. That includes wanting to ban common handguns while serving as California Attorney General and allegedly owning a handgun most other Californians cannot.

There is no question about where the former vice president and apparent early 2028 Democratic presidential contender stands on Second Amendment rights. She wants to do away with them.

How she’d do it

If there’s any question from skeptical voters who might think there’s no way former Vice President Kamala Harris would carry out her extreme gun control agenda, you don’t have to wonder. She told us exactly how she’ll do it.

Speaking at a conference in Nashville just two weeks ago, former Vice President Harris called for expanding and packing of the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as granting statehood (and two U.S. Senators each) to Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. She also proclaimed that the Electoral College needed “revising” — code speak for supporting direct popular vote for the U.S. presidency.

“We must allow for a real conversation about revisiting certain things,” the former vice president told an audience, according to Fox News. “I know this is gonna be controversial coming from me, in particular. We need to revisit the Electoral College. We need to revisit the point of expanding the court to 13 justices …”

Just a few years ago, suggesting those types of “reforms” were spoken about on the fringe. But as the DSA have firmly taken hold of the Democrat party and jolted elected officials to extreme and radical positions, leading politicians on the left have been all-too-happy to play footsie with these half-baked ideas — including seizing control of the means to manufacture firearms and ammunition.

In just two short years since voters tossed her out of the White House, former Vice President Harris has raced leftward in the blink of an eye, seeking approval of the most radical factions of a party that could send her back.

Once the midterm elections are through in November, the real race for 2028 will pick up. The former vice president already has the extreme gun control agenda to carry forward from a disastrous four years under the previous administration.

Republished with permission from NSSF.

BFA's Jim Samuel goes on 610's OnTarget to update on SB 214: Video

SHummel — Wed, 19 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Buckeye Firearms Association legislative affairs director Jim Samuel was a guest on 610 WTVN's "OnTarget" show Saturday, Aug. 15, to discuss suppressors and Ohio Senate Bill 214 with hosts Eric and Phil Delbert.

Q&A on Texas NFA case involving suppressors, SBRs, what it all means

SHummel — Tue, 18 Aug 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by NRA-ILA

On Aug. 12, an important development occurred in the ongoing litigation over the National Firearms Act (NFA) filed by multiple plaintiffs in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. These included, with NRA’s support, the Texas State Rifle Association (TSRA).

That update concerned the expiration of the court’s emergency stay of its own decision enjoining enforcement of certain provisions of the NFA because they exceeded the congressional taxing power under which the law was enacted.

Related article: Federal district judge in Texas rules NFA registration scheme on SBRs, suppressors unconstitutional

The stay was meant to give the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) time to appeal the decision or to ask for a longer stay while it contemplated its response. Thus far, the government has done neither, effectively allowing the court’s decision and order to go into effect.

That is, however, far from the end of matters. As usual, the internet rumor mill has been working overtime, and a lot of false information, hearsay, and speculation are being passed off as fact. The simple truth is that procedures for this uncharted legal terrain are still being determined.

To help affected parties navigate this challenging transition, we have prepared the following Q&A.

Note: This is general information only and should not be considered legal advice. For advice on how the decision applies to your specific circumstances, you must contact an attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

Q: What was this case about, and what did the court decide?

This was a pair of consolidated cases — Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and the NRA-supported Jensen v. ATF — brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiffs challenged the continued enforcement of certain National Firearms Act (NFA) registration and approval requirements for suppressors (silencers), short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns after Congress eliminated the NFA’s transfer and making taxes on those items.

On Aug. 5, 2026, Judge Wesley Hendrix held that those registration and approval requirements exceed Congress’s constitutional authority once the taxes were removed. The court issued a permanent injunction (initially stayed until Aug. 12, 2026) blocking enforcement of the challenged provisions against the plaintiff groups, their members, and customers (current and future) as applicable. The injunction does not apply to all eligible NFA purchasers or to all NFA items.

Q: Does the court's decision overturn the NFA?

No. The decision does not overturn or invalidate the National Firearms Act as a whole. It holds only that specific registration and approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns (and “any other weapons” for one group of plaintiffs) exceed Congress’ constitutional authority after the related taxes were eliminated.

Other NFA provisions, related federal statutes (such as restrictions on transferring or transporting short-barreled rifles and shotguns), the Special Occupational Tax regime, and requirements for other NFA items remain enforceable. The injunction is also limited in scope to the parties in the case and those covered downstream.

Q: Can I take advantage of this decision?

The injunction is limited to the parties in the consolidated cases (Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and the NRA-supported Jensen v. ATF), plus (where applicable) their agencies, political subdivisions, members, and customers—both current and future.

The court’s order indicates the decision’s protections generally flow “downstream” in the chain of commerce. Manufacturers, distributors, and dealers generally need to be a plaintiff or a member of a covered group, but customers of those businesses will likely be covered even if they are not members of specific plaintiffs groups themselves.

The SSF parties include B&T USA, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Palmetto State Armory, Silencerco Weapons Research, Silencer Shop Foundation, the states of Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming, and several individuals.

The Jensen parties include the Texas State Rifle Association (NRA’s Texas affiliate), Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Hot Shots Custom, and several individuals.

NRA has partnered with TSRA to offer joint membership for those interested (this is one way to ensure coverage under the injunction but not necessarily the only way).

Q: Does this mean I can buy an NFA firearm from an FFL without a background check?

No. The decision addresses NFA registration and approval requirements for specific items. It does not eliminate background checks that apply under other federal or state laws when purchasing from a licensed dealer.

Q: Does this mean I can buy an NFA firearm without a Form 4?

For covered parties (and their members/customers as applicable), the NFA’s registration and approval requirements that involve Form 4 (and related processes) for silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns are enjoined. However, other federal restrictions (such as those under 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4) for short-barreled rifles and shotguns) were not enjoined, and compliance with former NFA procedures may still be needed for certain transfers until further government action or clarification.

NRA and other plaintiffs are working to come to shared understandings with federal and (where relevant) state officials for procedures applicable to transactions subject to the court’s injunction.

Q: Can I assemble a short-barreled Firearm or suppressor

The injunction also applies to the NFA registration and application requirements on making these firearms. It should be possible for individuals covered by the injunction to lawfully make these firearms without following the NFA process, however, 26 U.S.C. § 5842(a) still requires individuals to follow the NFA’s marking requirements. ATF has proposed a rule that may address this by allowing an individual making a firearm to incorporate existing markings on the firearm’s frame or receiver.

Q: Does Judge Hendrix’s decision mean the NFA violates the Second Amendment?

No. The court held that the National Firearms Act’s registration and approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns exceed Congress’ constitutional authority after Congress eliminated the NFA’s transfer and making taxes on those arms. It does not declare the entire NFA unconstitutional. Other provisions remain in place, and the injunction is limited in scope to the parties and covered items.

Other pending NRA cases have challenged the NFA under the Second Amendment, and decisions are still awaited.

Q: What NFA items are covered by the decision?

Silencers (suppressors), short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns for the covered parties. The injunction also includes “any other weapons” for the SSF parties only.

Q: What provisions of the NFA can no longer be enforced against the plaintiff group, and what do those provisions mean?

The NFA’s registration and approval requirements are enjoined as to the covered items: 26 U.S.C. § 5812(a)–(b); 26 U.S.C. § 5822; 26 U.S.C. § 5841(a)–(c), (e); 26 U.S.C. § 5861(b)–(f); 27 C.F.R. § 479.62(a)–(d); and 27 C.F.R. § 479.84(a)–(d). These generally involve the processes for registering, transferring, or making the covered NFA items and obtaining ATF approval.

Certain marking requirements (26 U.S.C. § 5842(b) and 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i)) are enjoined with respect to the Jensen parties only. It appears the government will not be able to enforce those marking requirements against Jensen parties’ members and customers who possess firearms covered by the injunction (the government has not opined on the effect of this aspect of the decision).

Q: Are there other provisions of the NFA or other federal gun control laws that remain enforceable against the plaintiff group?

Yes. Key examples include:

18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4), which restricts licensed dealers/manufacturers/etc. from selling or delivering short-barreled shotguns or short-barreled rifles except as specifically authorized by the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity. Past NFA compliance was treated as such authorization. Without further clarification from the government, former procedures may still be required to satisfy this requirement.
18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4) regarding interstate transportation of short-barreled shotguns and rifles (authorization still required; ATF has proposed streamlining approval in an unrelated administrative action).
The existing Special Occupational Tax (SOT) regime for dealers in NFA firearms.

The injunction does not cover machineguns, destructive devices, or other NFA items whose taxes were not eliminated.

Q: How does the law of my state or locality affect my ability to take advantage of this decision?

Several states require compliance or registration under the NFA as a matter of state law. The federal injunction does not directly affect those state laws, though it may have indirect effects (for example, if federal NFA registration is no longer required for certain items, a state law that simply requires “compliance with the NFA” may not be violated by otherwise lawful possession without registration). ATF has not indicated it will stop processing NFA forms, so purchasers in those states could still follow the NFA process to satisfy state requirements. NRA is working with state attorneys general on these issues. Likewise, those states with existing bans on these items are unaffected by the injunction. Always check your specific state and local laws.

(See BFA's latest article on Senate Bill 214.)

Q: Has DOJ appealed the decision?

The court’s order was stayed until Aug. 12, 2026, to allow the government time to seek relief. As of press time (Aug. 17), the Department of Justice has not filed an emergency appeal, and the injunction went into effect on Aug. 13. DOJ still has several weeks left to appeal, if it so chooses.

Q: Will DOJ appeal the decision?

This is unknown. DOJ has stated it respects Second Amendment rights and is assessing the impact of the ruling. Plans for a full appeal have not been publicly confirmed. Reports of unnamed DOJ or federal sources indicating no appeal is forthcoming are unconfirmed.

Q: Can the court reimpose its stay, with or without a request from DOJ?

Yes. An injunction can be dissolved or stayed with very little notice. Courts retain authority to modify, stay, or reinstate stays on their own orders, including in response to a request from a party such as the Department of Justice or on the court’s own initiative (particularly if an appeal is pursued). Taking actions in reliance on the injunction carries risk precisely because of this possibility.

Q: What should I do?

Stay tuned as we provide updates on this unfolding situation. Above all, be patient and kind with your FFL, as FFLs are on the front lines of a legally complex and evolving landscape. Misunderstanding the state of play could result in serious legal and business consequences for those involved. Therefore, if you want to obtain an NFA item covered by the court’s injunctions, you should be prepared to comply with the process your FFL is using.

Q: What should FFLs do?

FFLs should consult with their legal counsel to formulate a strategy. They should be aware, however, that the current situation could change at any time. DOJ could appeal, for example, and the stay could be reimposed. Decisions are also expected in other cases, and they could further complicate the picture.

FFLs should be judicious about their sources of information and resist taking cues from Internet influencers who may have more followers than legal credentials.

Q: What are the applicable statutes of limitations and penalties if a later proceeding overturns the district court's decision and order?

For violations of the NFA itself, the statute of limitations is found in 26 U.S.C.A. § 6531 of the Internal Revenue Code. This generally imposes a three-year statute of limitations. Most violations of the Gun Control Act pertaining to NFA provisions would be subject to 18 U.S.C. § 3282, which imposes a five-year statute of limitations. Note, however, that some violations of either statute, such as unlawful possession of a firearm, are considered “continuing offenses” under which the statute of limitations does not run until the behavior is abandoned.

BFA urges passage of SB 214 to remove suppressors from ordnance definition

SHummel — Mon, 17 Aug 2026 09:00:00 +0000

by Joe D. "Buck" Ruth

Now that a federal judge in Texas on Aug. 5 has ruled that the remaining required registration of short-barreled rifles and suppressors in the National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional without a monetary tax, it's up to the Ohio House of Representatives to pass Senate Bill 214 to remove suppressors from the list of dangerous ordnances in Ohio law.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Kyle Koehler (R-Springfield) and backed by Buckeye Firearms Association, proposes revisions to the Ohio Revised Code, eliminating suppressors and mufflers from the definition of dangerous ordnance and removing language that mandates suppressor registration under the NFA.

The Senate passed the bill in March, and the Ohio House leadership has assured BFA that the bill would be passed as soon as it reconvenes from summer recess.

BFA has testified multiple times in favor of SB 214, most recently June 9 before the House Public Safety Committee.

From the testimony of Jim Samuel, BFA's legislative affairs director:

Anyone who shoots or hunts frequently has likely experienced some degree of hearing loss. And noise complaints frequently plague outdoor ranges. This is why suppressors can be a useful tool to promote hearing safety and reduce noise pollution. ... Senate Bill 214 is a straightforward yet important piece of legislation that simply removes suppressors and mufflers from a list of dangerous ordinances in the code … . It seeks to treat suppressors as the safety accessory they are.

Sean Maloney, BFA's legal counsel, wrote an article for AmmoLand, titled Ohio’s Unfinished Suppressor Reform Leaves a State-Law Trap for Gun Owners, describing the need to pass SB 214, pointing to a ruling in a similar case, Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF.

Maloney wrote, in part:

For years, Second Amendment advocates have pointed to an incongruity in Ohio law: a firearm suppressor is classified as “dangerous ordnance.” Ohio Revised Code § 2923.11(K)(5) expressly includes “[a]ny firearm muffler or suppressor” in that definition. The same definition that separately includes explosives, grenades, mines, rocket launchers, and other military-type weapons. A suppressor is not itself statutorily classified as an explosive, but Ohio’s dangerous-ordnance framework nonetheless places it in a legal category far removed from an ordinary firearm accessory.

That classification has serious consequences. Under R.C. 2923.17(A), a person generally may not knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use dangerous ordnance. A violation is a felony of the fifth degree. R.C. 2923.17(D).

For ordinary civilian suppressor owners, the principal statutory protection is found in R.C. 2923.17(C)(5): the exemption for owners of dangerous ordnance registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record under 26 U.S.C. § 5841. Ohio also provides a separate, limited hunting-related provision through R.C. 2923.17(C)(8) and R.C. 1533.04. But for the ordinary owner outside those narrow circumstances, Ohio law ties lawful possession to federal NFA registration. …

Until the House acts and the legislation becomes law, Ohio suppressor owners remain subject to a statutory structure that turns federal registration status into the central protection against a state felony charge. That is a problem Ohio lawmakers can and should fix (and) not leave Ohio gun owners one federal policy change away from a state-law felony trap.

Dean Rieck, BFA's executive director, said it is imperative that the House pass SB 214 without delay.

"This bill has strong bipartisan support," Rieck said. "In March, it passed the Senate committee 5-0 and the full Senate 31-1, which is rare for a firearms-related bill in Ohio. When there's that level of agreement about legislation, a bill should move swiftly."

BFA joined a lawsuit filed in February 2026, Roberts v. ATF, and asked the courts in April to strike down NFA rules on suppressors and short-barreled rifles and shotguns.

As BFA noted when the case was filed, until the passage of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill, the NFA had imposed a $200 excise tax ("tax stamp") on suppressors and on short-barreled rifles and required a tax-enforcement registration requirement on those items.

Trump's bill included both the SHORT Act and the Hearing Protection Act and would have eliminated the NFA tax and registration. At the time, BFA joined a long list of organizations nationwide in signing an open letter to two U.S. House of Representatives committees, insisting that Congress eliminate unjust restrictions imposed by the NFA.

The Supreme Court has established that any regulation on arms-bearing conduct must be consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. As the complaint argues, there is no tradition that supports the NFA’s registration requirement for protected arms such as suppressors and short-barreled rifles.

BFA maintains a list of gun-related bills in the current state legislative session, including where we stand on them. See our Legislation page.

Joe D. "Buck" Ruth, a pen name for Scott Hummel, is a longtime small-game hunter and gun owner who spent nearly three decades in the news industry. He is the website and social-media manager for Buckeye Firearms Association.