Can Nevadans Get Silencers & SBRS Without The NFA Now?

Does the new NFA ruling about silencers/suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs apply to Nevadans? Probably not. If your gun shop allows it, it’s at your and their own risk under state law.
 
On August 5, 2026, a federal judge ruled in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF that the National Firearm Act’s registration and advance-approval system cannot constitutionally be enforced for weapons whose NFA making/transfer tax Congress reduced to $0. Practically, this means that those plaintiffs, and their members and customers, do not have to follow the NFA process for short-barreled rifles (SBRs) or short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) or silencers (suppressors). This means no special ATF background check with fingerprints and photo, no wait time, no Form 4; just a regular Form 4473 over-the-counter transaction at a FFL like any other dealer firearm transfer. Yes, these items are still considered “firearms” under federal law.
 
Does this apply to Nevadans? Likely not, because of state laws that regulate those items and effectively mandate the NFA process. Nevada requires under state law, short-barreled rifles (SBRs) or short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) be registered with the ATF, meaning that they can only be transferred on a Form 4 or built on a Form 1. Silencers/suppressors can only be transferred or possessed “pursuant to federal law,” which is ambiguous, but can be reasonably understood to mean NFA registration.
 
Had a decision thrown out the NFA process entirely, then a Nevadan couldn’t comply with the statute, making it unreasonable, unenforceable, and invalid. Sadly, in this case there is much legal ambiguity that absent further clarification from the courts, legislative repeal, or an Attorney General’s opinion in support of the decision, likely prevents this ruling from being helpful to Nevadans.
 
It should be noted before we go on that the ruling does not invalidate the NFA entirely, even though as of today the Trump Administration chose not to request a stay. One cannot simply make their own silencer or SBR/SBS. The ruling only applies to certain business and their customers and members of certain organizations. The NRA-ILA explains that further here. But for Nevadans, the main obstacle is state law.
 
NRS 202.275 requires that short-barreled rifles (SBRs) or short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) be registered with “the United States Department of the Treasury” (NFA registration), or else it is a  category D felony. This means for the average person short rifles and shotguns need to be transferred to the buyer on an ATF Form 4 “Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm”, or if built or configured (“manufactured”) into a SBR or SBS, a Form 1 “Application to Make and Register a Firearm” must be submitted and approved.
 
As a reminder, SBRs have barrels less than 16 inches and SBSs have barrels less than 18 inches. The disparity is because originally both were 18 inches, however, such a volume of M1 Carbines with 17.75 inch barrels (often erroneously described as 18 inches) without NFA registration were released as surplus that rather than try and retroactively register or buyback all the carbines, the law was changed to 16 inches for rifles.
 
Another tidbit of note is that NRS 202.275 exist because in 1977, mainly Las Vegas area police were running into criminals with “sawed-off shotguns” and the like, but federal prosecutors didn’t have the capacity to prosecute them. Since the weapons weren’t illegal under state law, the criminals effectively got away with violating the NFA. To remedy this, authorities got the legislature to ban such items under state law without NFA registration.
 
With silencers (this is the legal term), it becomes a little bit more ambiguous. 202.275 only applies to SBRs or SBSs; it does not apply to silencers/suppressors. NRS 202.350 prohibits the sale, giving, lending, or possession of a silencer “unless authorized by federal law,” adding it does “not apply to any person who is licensed, authorized or permitted to possess or use […] or silencer pursuant to federal law.”
 
What does “authorized or permitted to possess… pursuant to federal law” really mean in this case? Does it mean Nevada requires a silencer to be NFA registered and transferred on a Form 4? Does “federal law” mean including district court case law? Unfortunately the NRS is vague here. What would clear this up is an Attorney General’s opinion stating to the effect that the ruling does apply to Nevada, overriding the statutes, but again unfortunately the current AG is a Democrat who is unlikely to issue a sympathetic opinion.
 
The NRS requires affirmative federal licensure, authorization, or permission, with the burden of proof on the individual. The Texas district-court ruling is a limited injunction, that merely restrains enforcement against a defined class of plaintiffs and customers; it does not itself issue any license, tax stamp, or positive federal permission (which is the argument the prosecutor would likely make). You would need to prove you were a covered customer or member of the plaintiff class and probably have to make an argument that a federal court ruling, from Texas, either satisfies “pursuant to federal law” and/or invalidates the registration requirement.
 
One could argue for the law in that a federal court judgment is an authoritative component of federal law. By permanently enjoining the ATF and DOJ from enforcing the NFA’s registration and approval requirements against the plaintiffs, the decision removes the prior federal barrier and thereby authorizes possession of the affected items.
 
The most conservative approach to this ruling and quandary is that it does not create the affirmative federal licensing or permission likely encompassed by the statutes’ authors (which is NFA registration). Will your gun shop do it? Are you willing to risk it? Those answers are individual.