House Budget Proposal to remove Tax on Suppressors but not remove it from the NFA

[W54/XM-388]

It gets tiring all these jingoistic blowhards that think the world would be so much better if only we enslaved everyone to be Uniform Hangers (or is it just men?) because forcing everyone to be slaves to the government and learn "how to just follow orders" would be so great...

Sure maybe they get raging wood thinking about how Hitler and the National Socialists regimented their country and stamped out all disent.

But we are NOT them, we are a country built on freedom and that means the freedom to say NO to the government and NO to if you don't believe in weapons or fighting or killing.

All those idiots who think the world would be so much better if "everyone were forced to "serve"" are the same total fools that are always building chains for others that will instead be used to bind them.

Everybody should have the opportunity to learn to use military and civilian style weapons effectively, while going to school, IF they wish and NO compulsion.

But the stupid idiots that like to fantasize about the greatness of glorious war machines will never understand.

 

[doubloon]

Everybody should have the opportunity to learn to use military and civilian style weapons effectively, while going to school

Si.

It (firearms safety/proficiency) should be integrated and offered same as sex education, D.A.R.E. programs, physical fitness, etc.

 

[Longshot231]

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Long video. Enjoy it. Or read the FPC letter here:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/191/attachments/original/1750446395/Coalition_Letter_-_PI_TRO_Bond.pdf?1750446395

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Well, that was short lived.

Republican attempt to rein in federal judges is stripped from Trump's big bill

The provision was aimed at curbing nationwide injunctions imposed by judges that have blocked some high-profile Trump administration policies.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[DemonicLemming]

Well, that was short lived.

Republican attempt to rein in federal judges is stripped from Trump's big bill

The provision was aimed at curbing nationwide injunctions imposed by judges that have blocked some high-profile Trump administration policies.

www.nbcnews.com

"The language added to the bill would have required anyone seeking an injunction to pay a fee that would be equal to "the costs and damages sustained by the federal government" if it were to ultimately win the case. On major national policies, that amount could be in the billions of dollars and would deter people from filing lawsuits, legal experts said."

Seems like that could really easily go either way, depending on who is in power and what court the case is in.

And, all Trump has to do is ignore the judges like Obama and Biden did.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Seems like that could really easily go either way, depending on who is in power and what court the case is in.

That is why the Firearms Policy Coalition wrote the letter that it did.

Think about, for example, the Forced Reset Trigger injunction and other potential gun cases. One would have to post a bond while the case is pending. This would have been a disaster.

 

[fx77]

If they remove the tax, how can it stay on the NFA? The point of the NFA was that the Roosevelt admin could not ban guns. But it could require a tax stamp that always so expensive that no one could justify it.

Because it is unconstitutional for the Fed to ban something. But you can put it on a list to tax it and then never issue the tax stamp. That’s how they do narcotics, too.

So eliminate the tax and it’s an arguably unconstitutional ban.

Might be a way to backdoor remove the suppressors.

Sirhr

Even removed from the NFA , there are so many states that for bid a suppressor , and to them it would make no difference.
Save $200 on something which you cannot buy anyway.

 

[alamo5000]

Even removed from the NFA , there are so many states that for bid a suppressor , and to them it would make no difference.
Save $200 on something which you cannot buy anyway.

They are legal to own in 42 states.

 

[david walter]

The SCOTUS reigns in the district courts from imagining nation wide injunctions, it'll be WAY better than what was in that bill.

 

[doubloon]

They are legal to own in 42 states.

IIRC

The penal code in Texas still says NFA are prohibited and registration is a defense against prosecution for possession.

The legislation passed a while back to make suppressors legal in Texas only makes suppressors made in Texas legal in Texas.

 

[JR_77]

 

[alamo5000]

IIRC

The penal code in Texas still says NFA are prohibited and registration is a defense against prosecution for possession.

The legislation passed a while back to make suppressors legal in Texas only makes suppressors made in Texas legal in Texas.

I have almost a dozen of them and I live in the state of Texas.

I'm not sure what you actually mean.

 

[doubloon]

I have almost a dozen of them and I live in the state of Texas.

I'm not sure what you actually mean.

It's complicated, or it's not.

I'm in the Houston-ish area and have a few as well.

AFAIK this is up to date and there may still be a lawsuit in progress over "made in Texas" suppressors, link at the bottom.

Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS - Texas Penal Code

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells: (1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco...

txpenalcode.com

Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS​

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:

(1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or otherwise not subject to that registration requirement or unless the item is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice:

(A) an explosive weapon;

(B) a machine gun; or

(C) a short-barrel firearm;

(2) armor-piercing ammunition;

(3) a chemical dispensing device;

(4) a zip gun;

(5) a tire deflation device;

(6) a firearm silencer, unless the firearm silencer is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice or the actor otherwise possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells the firearm silencer in compliance with federal law; or

(7) an improvised explosive device.

NFA Under Pressure - Made in Texas Suppressor Lawsuit Update | Walker & Taylor Law

The NFA is under pressure, as evidenced by the latest developments with the Made in Texas Suppressor lawsuit. Will the new standards of review set forth in NYSRPA v. Bruen finally pressure the NFA and ATF to a breaking point? Armed Attorneys Richard Hayes and Emily Taylor explain. Supreme Court...

www.walkertaylorlaw.com

 

[JR_77]

It's complicated, or it's not.

I'm in the Houston-ish area and have a few as well.

AFAIK this is up to date and there may still be a lawsuit in progress over "made in Texas" suppressors, link at the bottom.

Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS - Texas Penal Code

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells: (1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco...

txpenalcode.com

Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS​

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:

(1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or otherwise not subject to that registration requirement or unless the item is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice:

(A) an explosive weapon;

(B) a machine gun; or

(C) a short-barrel firearm;

(2) armor-piercing ammunition;

(3) a chemical dispensing device;

(4) a zip gun;

(5) a tire deflation device;

(6) a firearm silencer, unless the firearm silencer is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice or the actor otherwise possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells the firearm silencer in compliance with federal law; or

(7) an improvised explosive device.

NFA Under Pressure - Made in Texas Suppressor Lawsuit Update | Walker & Taylor Law

The NFA is under pressure, as evidenced by the latest developments with the Made in Texas Suppressor lawsuit. Will the new standards of review set forth in NYSRPA v. Bruen finally pressure the NFA and ATF to a breaking point? Armed Attorneys Richard Hayes and Emily Taylor explain. Supreme Court...

www.walkertaylorlaw.com

SBR’s to be removed from the State of Texas prohibited weapons list. Abbott signed SB 1596 effective 9/1/2025.

 

[doubloon]

SBR’s to be removed from the State of Texas prohibited weapons list. Abbott signed SB 1596 effective 9/1/2025.

Si. I don't recall the same thing for silencers/suppressors but I may have missed it. Only the "made in Texas" thing.

 

[Explorer]

Americans should be forced to shoot bullseyes and otherwise train with rifles from an early age, whether they like guns or not. At least the males should.

Then they should be forced to go through basic training and keep a functioning rifle with select fire from age 17 or 18 to at least 45 and show up for drill with it periodically and prove it is functional, well cared for, and its owner is competent in its use.

Just my two cents, and I think the Founders would have agreed with me.

I once thought along similar lines but after coming to my sanity, realized Uncle Sam does NOT need to become anymore of a baby sitter than he already is. 10 USC 311 already defines who is in the organized and unorganized militias and it includes most of the nation.

 

[VandelayIndustries]

Hate to see them selling federal land under this bill but I think it is mostly I Oregon so screw those guys anyway?

Still don't like selling off federal lands at all and oppose it 100%. Today it's Oregon tomorrow it's Idaho and Montana

couple things to consider.. it’s less than 1% of the land. The .gov is horrible at managing pretty much everything so why would we want them to have more land? Agenda 2030 and 2050 look into it. They want 30% of the land by 2030 then 50% by 2050. The wrong people get in office you think they’ll let you hunt on that? Good luck. Also that shrinks the tax base making land even more expensive and drives more people into the city. I’d be in favor of a sell off but not to a few big buyers. Give the land back to the people who generally are better managers of the land because we have a stake in it. Probably not a popular opinion but that’s my .02

 

[Mike Casselton]

It's complicated, or it's not.

I'm in the Houston-ish area and have a few as well.

AFAIK this is up to date and there may still be a lawsuit in progress over "made in Texas" suppressors, link at the bottom.

Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS - Texas Penal Code

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells: (1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco...

txpenalcode.com

Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS​

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:

(1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or otherwise not subject to that registration requirement or unless the item is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice:

(A) an explosive weapon;

(B) a machine gun; or

(C) a short-barrel firearm;

(2) armor-piercing ammunition;

(3) a chemical dispensing device;

(4) a zip gun;

(5) a tire deflation device;

(6) a firearm silencer, unless the firearm silencer is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice or the actor otherwise possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells the firearm silencer in compliance with federal law; or

(7) an improvised explosive device.

NFA Under Pressure - Made in Texas Suppressor Lawsuit Update | Walker & Taylor Law

The NFA is under pressure, as evidenced by the latest developments with the Made in Texas Suppressor lawsuit. Will the new standards of review set forth in NYSRPA v. Bruen finally pressure the NFA and ATF to a breaking point? Armed Attorneys Richard Hayes and Emily Taylor explain. Supreme Court...

www.walkertaylorlaw.com

#s 3 & 5.

3. A spray bottle?
5. A valve stem removal tool?

 

[supercorndogs]

couple things to consider.. it’s less than 1% of the land. The .gov is horrible at managing pretty much everything so why would we want them to have more land? Agenda 2030 and 2050 look into it. They want 30% of the land by 2030 then 50% by 2050. The wrong people get in office you think they’ll let you hunt on that? Good luck. Also that shrinks the tax base making land even more expensive and drives more people into the city. I’d be in favor of a sell off but not to a few big buyers. Give the land back to the people who generally are better managers of the land because we have a stake in it. Probably not a popular opinion but that’s my .02

Its not them managing more land. The land they want to sell is already open to the public and used by hunters and hikers, 4x4s, side by sides and dirt bikes ext ext. as well as leased for grazing as determeined by a wildlife biologist. In the west we have watched a systematic attack on access to our public lands over the last 50 years. They close roads, declare places wilderness, re-designate it a national monument, make it a state park and charge you enter. Or stick a gate on the road and restrict access to "authorized vehicles."

I am not in favor of doing anything with public land but managing it to keep it healthy and accessible for the public it was set aside for. Thier management has put most of our western forests on public lands into an epically bad condition on the verge of the entire things being burned out. I can tell you people I know were already pissed off. The idea of Selling it off makes them livid.

Ole R Utah senior senator fights for the sale of public land as part of his platform. Public land sales were already included and removed from the house bill.

 

[hlee]

Fuck it. Ever’body wants to be a capitalist until it’s time to do capitalist shit.

 

[XP1K]

The thing about the public land sale is it won't be average joe buying a few acres to homestead. It'll be big corporate interest that either want access to the natural resources or developers.

I heard something about the Saudis being lined up to purchase a chunk as soon as it goes public. US land should never be sold to a foreign entity period.

 

[Longshot231]

Fuck it. Ever’body wants to be a capitalist until it’s time to do capitalist shit.

A lot of people like communism until they can make money from it.

 

[supercorndogs]

Fuck it. Ever’body wants to be a capitalist until it’s time to do capitalist shit.

The government selling land set aside for and owned by John Q Public is capitalism? this land managed properly could be one of the greatest publicly owned assets we have in this country. And that is just making money from industry.

 

[lash]

A lot of people like communism until because they can make money from it.

FIFY

 

[hlee]

The government selling land set aside for and owned by John Q Public is capitalism? this land managed properly could be one of the greatest publicly owned assets we have in this country. And that is just making money from industry.

Publicly owned assets, you say? The next thing you’ll say is “we need to nationalize the oil fields…”

 

[D̷e̷v̷i̷l̷D̷o̷c̷A̷Z̷]

It's complicated, or it's not.

I'm in the Houston-ish area and have a few as well.

AFAIK this is up to date and there may still be a lawsuit in progress over "made in Texas" suppressors, link at the bottom.

Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS - Texas Penal Code

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells: (1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco...

txpenalcode.com

Sec. 46.05. PROHIBITED WEAPONS​

(a) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells:

(1) any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or otherwise not subject to that registration requirement or unless the item is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice:

(A) an explosive weapon;

(B) a machine gun; or

(C) a short-barrel firearm;

(2) armor-piercing ammunition;

(3) a chemical dispensing device;

(4) a zip gun;

(5) a tire deflation device;

(6) a firearm silencer, unless the firearm silencer is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice or the actor otherwise possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells the firearm silencer in compliance with federal law; or

(7) an improvised explosive device.

NFA Under Pressure - Made in Texas Suppressor Lawsuit Update | Walker & Taylor Law

The NFA is under pressure, as evidenced by the latest developments with the Made in Texas Suppressor lawsuit. Will the new standards of review set forth in NYSRPA v. Bruen finally pressure the NFA and ATF to a breaking point? Armed Attorneys Richard Hayes and Emily Taylor explain. Supreme Court...

www.walkertaylorlaw.com

A tire deflation device?!

I thought this was satire.

 

[hlee]

A tire deflation device?!

I thought this was satire.

Until 1973, it was illegal to carry a set of wire cutters in the state...

 

[lash]

It’s really handy to make laws ambiguous and open to interpretation. For the enforcers anyway.

Your pocket knife, an ice pick, as @Mike Casselton said a valve core tool, even your legally carried firearms, and etc… all qualify. Have you registered all of these with the Feds to avoid potential prosecution?

 

[doubloon]

Until 1973, it was illegal to carry a set of wire cutters in the state...

Near a fence that wasn't yours I think.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

IIRC

The penal code in Texas still says NFA are prohibited and registration is a defense against prosecution for possession.

The legislation passed a while back to make suppressors legal in Texas only makes suppressors made in Texas legal in Texas.

Go read the new Senate version. It covers this issue by declaring silencers acquired legally as complying with the National Firearms Act.

OOPS

EDIT: Maybe not. See next post.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/finance_committee_legislative_text_title_vii.pdf

Go to page 262. Start reading at line 20 and continue on to the next page, stopping at line six. Subsection (f) is aimed at the states that require registration compliance with the NFA for NFA items to be legal. Buy it legally, and federal law will say that you should be treated as if you had registered it. BUT this appears to cover AOW, SBS and SBR, not silencers . . .


Please read it and let me know if you think I am wrong.

 

[doubloon]

Go read the new Senate version. It cover this issue by declaring silencers acquired legally as complying with the National Firearms Act.

I'm only aware of HB 957. Without FED level removal of suppressors from the NFA it's effectively toothless.

If you have a link to something else I'll read it.

Texas HB 957: Can You Buy A Suppressor Without the Stamp?

Texas HB 957 is a new state law that skirts federal gun laws and the NFA when buying a suppressor within the state...but is it legal? We discuss...

www.pewpewtactical.com

In essence, it allows suppressors made in Texas to be sold without registration with the ATF.


Further complicating the issue is that HB 957 states that parts must be manufactured in Texas. But it doesn’t define which parts or how far down the supply chain that goes.

The reality is no matter what the state says, you still have to follow [the feds] law, and they still have jurisdiction,

Every time something like this has gone to the Supreme Court, they’ve said that the feds have control over things that could cross state lines,

There is the current state of legal things, the wishful state of legal things, the transitionary state of legal things and the multi-transitionary state of things. It's tiered.

Short barreled things and suppressor things are in multi-transitional state of things. A bill passed in Texas, for Texans, making short barreled things not prohibited but not in effect until later this year and meaningless outside of Texas or in a federal encounter anywhere without the declassification of short barreled things at the FED/NFA level and even then likely to remain prohibited or dicey in a dozen or more states.

New Texas Suppressor Law Explained

New laws, whether enacted on the local, state, or federal levels, can often be confusing. Adding to this confusion is the fact that many people try to boil legislation down to easy-to-digest

www.silencercentral.com

The Reality of HB 957​

HB 957 simply removes the threat of state-level prosecution for unregistered suppressor manufacturing, sales, and/or possession. It does not provide any level of immunity from federal-level prosecution.

 

[doubloon]

https://www.finance.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/finance_committee_legislative_text_title_vii.pdf

Go to page 262. Start reading at line 20 and continue on to the next page, stopping at line six. Subsection (f) is aimed at the states that require registration compliance with the NFA for NFA items to be legal. Buy it legally, and federal law will say that you should be treated as if you had registered it. BUT this appears to cover AOW, SBS and SBR, not silencers . . .


Please read it and let me know if you think I am wrong.

I see where it says this.

any person who acquires or possesses such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon in accordance with chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement with respect to such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon

At best you don't need to show your papers for SBS/SBR/AOW as long as your acquisition meets the requirements under chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code which still lists quite a few "unlawful" activities wrt SBS/SBR/AOW things.

But that doesn't override state level laws.

If the FED takes away the need and means to obtain registration of NFA things but the state still says it's prohibited to have them unless they're registered with the FED under NFA then buying one after the FED stops giving out registrations but before the state removes the requirement for registration puts you in kind of a limbo.

 

[VandelayIndustries]

The government selling land set aside for and owned by John Q Public is capitalism? this land managed properly could be one of the greatest publicly owned assets we have in this country. And that is just making money from industry.

It’s funny you use the word asset. The fed actually wants to put the public lands on the role as an asset. What happens when default or bankruptcy of a nation occurs?
No one is for foreign countries or persons to being able to buy land, that should be made illegal. And the idea that only big corporations or billionaires will buy the land doesn’t have to happen. They can put stipulations on it so that doesn’t happen. The less the government owns and controls the better.

 

[VandelayIndustries]

Back on topic now…
I’d still like to know what will happen in states like CA,NY etc. where they aren’t legal. Still are not legal but no longer considered a felony?

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Back on topic now…
I’d still like to know what will happen in states like CA,NY etc. where they aren’t legal. Still are not legal but no longer considered a felony?

It will be the same as it is now. Now different. If it is a felony, then it is a felony.

Basically, you had two governments, state and fed, threatening to imprison you. Now you have only one.

The federal legislation will not change anything at the state level.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

https://larrysharpe.com/2018/05/silencers-your-right-to-own-one/#:~:text=In%2042%20of%2050%20states,sale%20or%20possession%20is%20illegal.

In 42 of 50 states, it is legal to own a silencer for your firearm. New York is not one of those states. In New York, their sale or possession is illegal. They have been illegal for some time, but Andrew Cuomo’s 2013 NY SAFE Act upped the stakes and made it a violent felony and increased the jail sentence if you put a silencer on a firearm.

 

[MarinePMI]

Here are the states.

https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/5358034-proposed-sale-of-millions-of-acres-of-public-land-under-gop-budget-bill-prompts-backlash/

Montana was pulled out of the bill after one of its Senators objected.

3-7-77

 

[VandelayIndustries]

It will be the same as it is now. Now different. If it is a felony, then it is a felony.

Basically, you had two governments, state and fed, threatening to imprison you. Now you have only one.

The federal legislation will not change anything at the state level.

So still a state felony but not a federal felony. You’d think if this passes it could be pushed to the Supreme Court for those final states but maybe doubtful seeing how long the NY safe act has been imposed

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

So still a state felony but not a federal felony. You’d think if this passes it could be pushed to the Supreme Court for those final states but maybe doubtful seeing how long the NY safe act has been imposed

Maybe, if we can get courts to disagree. So far they have been ruling that gun mufflers are not "arms" and not required for arms to function for self defense.

 

[MarinePMI]

Back on topic now…
I’d still like to know what will happen in states like CA,NY etc. where they aren’t legal. Still are not legal but no longer considered a felony?

Believe it or not, suppressors are technically legal in California. Just good luck getting anyone to sign off on one to acquire it legally (it's effectively a shadow ban on them).

 

[doubloon]

So far they have been ruling that gun mufflers are not "arms"

If they're not "arms" they're not protected under 2A. Arms includes defensive as well as offensive gear. I would prefer to argue they are "arms".

 

[JR_77]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/06/24/texas-gun-laws-2025-red-flag-shotgun/

Texas bans ‘red flag’ laws that allow guns to be taken from owners in crisis​

 

[doubloon]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/06/24/texas-gun-laws-2025-red-flag-shotgun/

Texas bans ‘red flag’ laws that allow guns to be taken from owners in crisis​

Good read even if slanted.

To bypass the paywall pick option 3 or option 4 at the link below

RemovePaywall | Free online paywall remover

Remove Paywall, free online paywall remover. Get access to articles without having to pay or login. Works on Bloomberg and hundreds more.

www.removepaywall.com

 

[anon]

The cap on my bicycle's tire stems looked like this in Texas, when I was in grade school and spent most of my free time riding about.

 

[lash]

The cap on my bicycle's tire stems looked like this in Texas, when I was in grade school and spent most of my free time riding about.

Anybody that rode a bicycle everywhere had those back in the day. It was a Tuesday…

 

[JR_77]

The cap on my bicycle's tire stems looked like this in Texas, when I was in grade school and spent most of my free time riding about.

I knew you were all about the thug life and that post confirms it.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Believe it or not, suppressors are technically legal in California. Just good luck getting anyone to sign off on one to acquire it legally (it's effectively a shadow ban on them).

The CLEO sign off was removed by Rule change, ATF Rule 41F, back in 2016.

Now it is just a notification.

I used to visit my Sheriff and have him sign, for example, when I purchased a machine gun, but if you have purchased anything recently, then you would know that practice ended almost a decade ago.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

ATF Form 4 Silencer Purchase - Who is your CLEO?

When applying for a silencer as an individual, you need to have a CLEO sign off on your form. You have several options for who that person is.

www.silencercentral.com

In 2016, ATF Rule 41F removed the requirement that a CLEO sign off on your purchase. Instead, it is now only required that the CLEO be notified of your purchase. This makes things much easier, but it also means that knowing who the CLEO is is still important.

Not sure why the description in the article says one needs a CLEO signature, as that is not true and even the article says the opposite.