On Friday, October 9, ATF Director Robert Cekada issued an open letter announcing that the agency will no longer require anyone to obtain ATF approval before making or transferring suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, or “any other weapons,” and will no longer require those items to be registered. It applies to everyone in the country, not only the plaintiffs in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, No. 6:25-CV-056-H, and Jensen v. ATF, No. 6:26-CV-227 (N.D. Tex.). It is a major development, and it is an act of enforcement discretion. Anyone who relies on it should understand what that means.
What the Letter Does
Judge James Wesley Hendrix’s August 5 judgment bound the government only as to the plaintiffs and certain specified persons, principally their members and customers. The letter reaches far beyond that. In ATF’s words, “Effective October 9, 2026, ATF will no longer require individuals to seek ATF approval under the NFA before making or transferring short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers” and the other covered items. ATF will likewise stop requiring registration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. These policies apply uniformly to anyone otherwise subject to the requirements.
The letter is consistent with the Attorney General’s statement issued the same day. It goes further than the Director’s August 28 post promising no enforcement action against protected parties inconsistent with the ruling. That was a promise. This is an operative policy.
Participation is voluntary. ATF will continue to accept Form 1 applications to make or register these items, Form 3 and Form 4 applications to transfer them, and Form 2 manufacturer reports, for anyone who wishes to file. No one is required to.
What the Letter Does Not Do
Nothing in the letter touches machine guns or destructive devices, which remain fully regulated. Nothing in it relieves licensed dealers and manufacturers of the special occupational tax, which Judge Hendrix did not enjoin and which continues. These items remain “firearms” under the Gun Control Act, so a dealer sale still requires a Form 4473 and a background check in the ordinary course. State and local law is unchanged, and a state that bans or licenses suppressors or short-barreled rifles may continue to do so.
The letter also did not repeal anything. The National Firearms Act remains in the United States Code. What changed is that the agency charged with enforcing it has stopped enforcing the approval and registration requirements against the items a federal court found Congress could no longer reach through the taxing power once the tax was zeroed out.
Discretion Is Not Law
A letter is not a rule. It was not adopted through notice and comment, and it is not a judgment. It is a statement of how the executive branch will use its discretion today, and a future administration could announce a different policy tomorrow. Whatever permanence this change has will come from the judgment and the law, not from the letter itself.
My argument is that two protections make this policy far more durable than its form suggests.
The first is the judgment itself. Judge Hendrix’s final judgment and the injunction that took effect August 13 bind the government as to everyone they cover, regardless of who occupies the White House. A new administration could change its enforcement priorities, but it could not wave away an injunction running to the plaintiffs, their members, and their customers. For those persons, the protection is judicial, not administrative.
The second is reliance. Under the doctrine of entrapment by estoppel, the government may not prosecute a person for conduct he undertook in reasonable reliance on an official representation that the conduct was lawful. An open letter from the Director of ATF, issued on behalf of the agency that administers the statute and consistent with the Attorney General’s public position, is the kind of official assurance on which a law-abiding citizen may reasonably rely. It is in my view difficult to see how a later administration could indict a person for making or acquiring an item in the months when ATF said, in writing, that no approval was required. I have written about that defense before, and this letter gives it considerably more factual support.
What Comes Next
A future administration could try to resume enforcement. I believe it would face the judgment, the reliance defense, and a growing body of lawful ownership that bears on the constitutional question. My forecast is that by 2029 these items will be in common use for lawful purposes, with consequences for any future registration scheme or targeted tax.
The letter is real, it is written, and it is nationwide. It is also revocable. Those who act on it should keep their records, and those who want the added comfort of a filed form may still submit one voluntarily. Attorney General Todd Blanche, Director Cekada, and ATF Chief Counsel Robert Leider deserve credit for reading the judgment and the direction of Congress as they should be read. The durable result of this litigation is a judgment that endures and a government that is held to its word.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.