CURRENT / LEGAL INTELLIGENCE

FIREARMS LAW MAP

Explore 51 verified jurisdiction workspaces, thirteen national topic matrices, primary authority, recent legal changes, litigation status, and firearms-business requirements.

NFA INJUNCTION ACTIVE / LIMITED SCOPEUPDATED AUGUST 25, 2026FULL 51-STATE REVIEW AUGUST 21
ACTIVE
MAJOR FEDERAL DEVELOPMENT / VERIFIED AUGUST 21, 2026

NFA injunction now in effect

Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF permanently enjoins enforcement of specified National Firearms Act provisions against defined plaintiffs and, where applicable, their members and customers. The relief is significant, but it is not a universal repeal of the NFA.

PERMANENT INJUNCTIONPARTY + TRANSACTION SCOPESTATE LAW REMAINSAPPEAL / GUIDANCE MONITOR
COURTN.D. TEX.ORDERAUG 05, 2026EFFECTIVEAUG 13, 2026
FIREARMS LAW UPDATES / 2026-08-25

Recent firearms law developments

Significant federal and state developments, with effective dates, operative scope, primary authority, and practical compliance implications.

7PRIORITY UPDATES
EFFECTIVE SEP 21, 2026FUTURE EFFECTIVE
FEDERAL / ALL STATES / RIGHTS RESTORATION

DOJ finalizes the federal firearms-rights restoration process

The Department of Justice published final criteria for individual applications under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). The rule and application intake begin September 21, 2026; relief is individualized and does not erase a later-acquired disability.

WHY IT MATTERS

Individuals, counsel, FFLs, and compliance teams should distinguish an application from an actual grant of relief and confirm the scope of any final order before treating a federal disability as removed.

91 Fed. Reg. 54054 (Aug. 20, 2026); 18 U.S.C. § 925(c)
AUG 17–21, 2026LIMITED RELIEF / MONITOR
FEDERAL / SELECTED PARTIES / PRIVATELY MADE FIREARMS

Two federal decisions alter—but do not nationally erase—the frame-and-receiver rule

A Northern District of Texas order bars enforcement of portions of ATF's 2022 rule against specified plaintiffs, members, products, and transactions. Separately, the Ninth Circuit dismissed California's challenge to a narrower ATF interpretation for lack of standing.

WHY IT MATTERS

Neither decision should be treated as a nationwide vacatur. Determine the party, product, transaction, jurisdiction, and current appellate posture before changing serialization, licensing, recordkeeping, or background-check procedures.

VanDerStok v. Blanche, No. 4:22-cv-00691, Doc. 330 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 17, 2026); California v. ATF, No. 24-2701 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2026)
EFFECTIVE AUG 1, 2026CURRENT
COLORADO / PURCHASE & TRANSFER

Covered semiautomatic acquisitions now require the statutory training pathway

Colorado SB 25-003 restricts manufacture, distribution, transfer, sale, and purchase of defined specified semiautomatic firearms, subject to enumerated exclusions and a qualifying training pathway. Enrollment in the required course begins with a sheriff-issued firearms safety course eligibility card.

WHY IT MATTERS

For a covered transfer, an FFL must verify qualifying course completion through the state record system in addition to applying Colorado's dealer-permit, background-check, and waiting-period requirements.

Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 18-12-116, 33-9-115; 2025 Colo. SB 25-003
PRIMARY / OFFICIAL SOURCE ↗
DECIDED JUN 25, 2026CONTROLLING PRECEDENT
U.S. SUPREME COURT / HAWAII / SENSITIVE PLACES

Wolford invalidates Hawaii's default ban on licensed carry in public-facing private property

The Supreme Court held that Hawaii may not require a licensed carrier to obtain express owner authorization before entering private property open to the public. Property owners retain their ordinary authority to exclude firearms; the decision did not resolve every separately enumerated sensitive place.

WHY IT MATTERS

Licensed carriers are no longer subject to Hawaii's express-authorization default on private property open to the public. Owner-specific exclusion, separately regulated locations, and analogous laws in other jurisdictions require independent analysis.

Wolford v. Lopez, 609 U.S. ___ (2026)
PRIMARY / OFFICIAL SOURCE ↗
ATF / NFA REGULATORY UPDATE · 2026-08-25

Suppressors & short-barreled rifles

Current ATF rules and proposals affecting NFA taxes, classification, interstate transport, application requirements, registration, and processing.

01EFFECTIVE RULE04OPEN / PENDING PROPOSALS
EFFECTIVE JAN 1 / RULE EFFECTIVE JUN 10, 2026EFFECTIVE
SUPPRESSORS + SBRs

$0 making and transfer tax does not end the NFA application process

ATF's May 2026 final rule conforms 27 C.F.R. part 479 to the statutory $0 making and transfer tax for silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs. Machine guns and destructive devices remain outside the reduction.

OPERATIONAL TAKEAWAY

Forms 1 and 4, advance approval, registration, background review, and the other NFA application requirements remain in force. Treat this as a tax-rate change—not blanket deregulation or permission to make, possess, or transfer an item without approval.

PROPOSED MAY 6 / COMMENTS CLOSED AUG 4, 2026PROPOSED / NOT FINAL
SBR CLASSIFICATION

ATF proposes removing the 2023 stabilizing-brace factoring language

ATF proposes deleting the two paragraphs added to the regulatory definition of rifle in 2023. The agency's notice acknowledges that courts enjoined, stayed, or vacated the 2023 rule and that it has rarely been in effect.

OPERATIONAL TAKEAWAY

The proposal does not itself amend the regulation. Avoid reducing every brace-equipped firearm to a single answer: configuration, ordinary rifle/SBR definitions, controlling court orders, and any later final rule still require review.

PROPOSED MAY 8 / COMMENTS CLOSED AUG 6, 2026PROPOSED / CURRENT FORM 20 CONTROLS
SBR TRAVEL

ATF proposes relaxing domestic interstate-transport procedures

ATF proposes eliminating notice and advance approval for covered short-term domestic transport of 365 days or fewer and eliminating the wait-for-approval step after notice for longer or permanent domestic moves.

OPERATIONAL TAKEAWAY

This is not final. ATF's current eForms instructions still list Form 20 as filed before interstate or foreign transport of SBRs, short-barreled shotguns, machine guns, and destructive devices. Suppressors are not listed in that Form 20 category, but destination-state law still controls possession.

PROPOSED JUL 6 / COMMENTS OPEN TO OCT 5, 2026PROPOSED / COMMENT OPEN
FORMS 1 + 4 / TRUSTS

ATF proposes reducing fingerprint and photograph submissions

ATF proposes allowing a copy of photo identification in place of a separate passport-style photograph and reducing fingerprint submissions. Under the proposal, NFA responsible persons would submit one fingerprint card only when needed to facilitate a background check.

OPERATIONAL TAKEAWAY

These are proposed procedures, not current filing instructions. Continue using the requirements in the operative form and eForms workflow unless ATF publishes a final rule or revised instruction.

PROPOSED MAY 8 / COMMENTS CLOSED JUL 7, 2026PROPOSED / NOT FINAL
SUPPRESSORS + SBRs

Joint NFA registration for spouses remains a proposal

ATF proposes allowing spouses to apply jointly so that both approved spouses would have a joint right to make or possess the registered NFA firearm and an intra-spousal change in possession would not be a new NFA transfer.

OPERATIONAL TAKEAWAY

Do not treat a spouse as a co-registrant under this proposal today. Use the currently available individual, trust, or other entity pathway and follow the operative approved registration.

ATF UPDATED AUG 17, 2026CURRENT OPERATIONS SNAPSHOT
FORMS 1 + 4

ATF posts July processing and suppressor-volume data

For applications finalized in July 2026, ATF reports averages of 57 days for eForm 1, 9 days for individual eForm 4, and 33 days for trust eForm 4; the median individual eForm 4 time was 8 days. ATF received 120,623 Form 4 silencer applications in July.

OPERATIONAL TAKEAWAY

These figures describe completed applications and are not service guarantees. Additional research and submission volume can extend an individual application; ATF directs case-specific status inquiries to the NFA Division after 90 days.

FFL POST-ORDER COMPLIANCE / CURRENT STATUS

ATF implementation guidance remains pending

ATF has not issued public instructions for processing transactions under the Silencer Shop injunction. NSSF has requested agency guidance. Pending further direction, FFLs should distinguish the surviving federal requirements below from the unresolved transaction mechanics.

ATF GUIDANCE PENDING
01 / CONFIRM INJUNCTION COVERAGE

Document the protected transaction nexus

The injunction is party-specific. For a nonparty dealer or buyer, coverage depends on the applicable plaintiff, association membership, commercial-member status, customer relationship, item category, and the particular transaction. A state’s participation protects its agencies and political subdivisions—not every resident.

02 / SUPPRESSORS & COVERED AOWs

The Gun Control Act still applies

For a transaction actually protected by the injunction, the court did not enjoin Form 4473, NICS, acquisition-and-disposition records, marking requirements, or other GCA duties. State and local law can still require NFA registration or independently prohibit the item.

03 / SBRs & SBSs

Continue the available approval pathway

The court did not enjoin 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4), which separately restricts an FFL’s delivery of an SBR or SBS absent Attorney General authorization. ATF has not published an alternative authorization mechanism; Form 4 remains the available pathway identified by current industry guidance.

04 / INVENTORY & NFRTR

Several dealer mechanics remain unresolved

ATF has not issued a public procedure for removing an item from the NFRTR without Form 4, moving unregistered inventory between licensees, handling interstate movement under unenjoined § 5861(j), or supplying non-SOT dealers. Obtain written coverage documentation and transaction-specific legal guidance before departing from the ordinary NFA process.

ATF CURRENT EFORMS ↗NSSF INDUSTRY GUIDANCE ↗SILENCER SHOP WORKFLOW ↗
LIMITED, PARTY-SPECIFIC INJUNCTION

The August 5 NFA injunction applies only to qualifying parties, customers, products, and transactions. It did not provide universal relief, did not enjoin the Gun Control Act, and left multiple interstate, inventory, and registration mechanics unresolved.

JURISDICTIONS5150 STATES + D.C.
STRUCTURED RECORDS1,275STATE + FFL RECORDS
LEGAL TOPICS13NATIONAL MATRICES
LATEST UPDATEAUG 25FULL 51-STATE REVIEW AUG 21, 2026
NATIONAL CLASSIFICATION

Concealed carry

51 MATCHES
HOVER FOR SUMMARY SELECT FOR STATE WORKSPACE
PERMITTED / BROAD ACCESS PERMIT OR LICENSE RESTRICTED / PROHIBITED MIXED / CONDITIONAL OTHER / REVIEW
STATE LAW WORKSPACE

Florida

FL · Last legally verified 2026-08-21

RECENT LEGAL DEVELOPMENTMcDaniels v. State invalidated Florida’s general open-carry prohibition in the First District Court of Appeal.
OVERALL STATUSMIXED / LITIGATION-SENSITIVE
CURRENT LITIGATIONMONITOR REQUIRED
FLORIDA DEVICE LAW / ACTIVE ISSUE

Federal FRT developments do not answer whether a specific product falls within Florida Statutes § 790.222. The attached analysis, statutory text, and Roberts orders are available in the Industry Insights workspace.

OPEN FRT ANALYSIS →
FACT-SPECIFIC VERIFICATION REQUIRED

Local discharge, zoning, government-property and business-license exceptions remain despite statewide preemption. Open-carry ban invalidated by First DCA in McDaniels (2025); age-18 carry and waiting-period issues have 2026 litigation overlays. Permitless carriers may lack permit-holder exceptions for school zones, alcohol premises, parking areas or reciprocity.

Check official state code, current agency guidance, local code and controlling docket immediately before reliance.