Key Takeaways
- Alaska Attorney General Cori Mills seeks legislative action to resolve a conflict in state law regarding the enforcement of the National Firearms Act (NFA).
- A recent federal ruling invalidated certain federal registration requirements, creating uncertainty for Alaska residents regarding suppressors and short-barreled firearms.
- Currently, Alaska’s law provides a defense based on federal registration, but with the registration no longer required, individuals risk felony charges without a clear legal pathway.
- Mills emphasizes that the state Legislature must address this confusion, as temporary measures involving prosecutor discretion are inadequate.
- Lawmakers plan to reconvene in January, but no bill has been proposed yet to clarify the state’s firearms laws in light of recent changes.
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
JUNEAU, AK — Acting Alaska Attorney General Cori Mills is asking the next Legislature to fix a conflict in state law created by a federal ruling that Alaska itself helped win against the National Firearms Act. In an October 15 release, the Alaska Department of Law said the decision in Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives created uncertainty in Alaska because state law links certain criminal-code defenses to federal registration requirements that are no longer being enforced. Until the Legislature clarifies the statute, the Department has asked law enforcement agencies to consult with state prosecutors before filing charges under it.
I covered the federal side of this in ATF Stops Requiring NFA Approval and Registration for Suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs Nationwide Effective October 9, 2026, and the Florida side of the same question in Florida Prosecutor to Sheriffs and Police Chiefs: Florida Law Does Not Require an ATF Tax Stamp for Short-Barreled Rifles and Shotguns After Silencer Shop Ruling. Florida’s answer came from a prosecutor concluding that state law does not require the stamp. Alaska’s statute is wired the other way. Its only defense depends on the federal registration itself, which is why Mills says the fix has to come from the Legislature, not a prosecutor’s memo.
Here is the conflict. Under Alaska Statute 11.61.200, manufacturing, possessing, transporting, selling or transferring a suppressor, a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches, or a shotgun with a barrel shorter than 18 inches is third-degree misconduct involving weapons, a class C felony. The statute gives the accused an affirmative defense if the item was handled in accordance with federal NFA registration requirements. An affirmative defense is a recognized legal basis to beat the charge; it does not remove the underlying prohibition from the books. For decades, the registered item was the defense. Take away the registration and the prohibition is all that is left.
The ruling came on August 5 from Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Since 1934, the NFA had required anyone buying or making a suppressor, short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun to pay a $200 tax, apply to ATF, and register the item in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. Congress zeroed that tax through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, effective January 1, 2026, but left the registration and approval paperwork in place. Alaska and 14 other states, joined by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Silencer Shop Foundation, SilencerCo, B&T USA, Palmetto State Armory, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, and individual plaintiff Brady Wetz, argued that once the tax was gone, Congress no longer had the authority to enforce the paperwork that went with it. According to GOA’s release, Hendrix agreed, holding that Congress wiped out the constitutional basis for federal gun registration when it zeroed the NFA taxes, and he permanently blocked ATF from enforcing the challenged provisions against the plaintiffs, their members, and their customers.
Then ATF went further than the judgment required. The Second Amendment Foundation quotes ATF’s formal guidance stating that the injunction “only benefits the plaintiffs in the litigation and the other persons specified in the district court’s order,” but that as a matter of “enforcement discretion” the agency will “not enforce the NFA against any person as applied to the domestic manufacturing, possession, and transfer of short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and ‘any other weapons.’” SAF also notes ATF acknowledged the Department could rescind those enforcement guidelines. ATF also said it would keep accepting voluntary registrations, specifically citing state laws, including Alaska’s, that reference federal registration.
That voluntary registration line is the whole Alaska problem in miniature. The federal paperwork is now optional, the state felony is not, and the only thing standing between an Alaskan and a class C felony charge is a defense built on paperwork the federal government says it will not require. That is the knot Mills wants the Legislature to untie.
“The Second Amendment, and the right to bear arms, must be protected,” Mills said in the release. “The court made the right decision, and we appreciate the court recognizing federal overreach into our Second Amendment rights. While a win for the Second Amendment, the court case and the ATF’s guidance adds a level of confusion for many Alaskans who want access to these firearms but don’t see the legal way forward in ownership under existing law. The proper place for this to be resolved is in the State Legislature and I’m asking the next legislature to look at this issue, and the Department of Law stands ready to assist. In the meantime, our department is asking law enforcement to work closely with state prosecutors before filing any charges as the state of the law is in flux.”
The prosecutor-consultation instruction is a stopgap, not a fix. A prosecutor’s discretion is not a defense you can carry in your pocket, and it can change with the next administration or the next ATF memo.
More from USA Carry:
Alaska’s lawyers won this case. The state put its name on the complaint, argued Congress had lost the power to require registration, and got a judgment it can enforce. The state’s own criminal code is the one piece that did not get the message, and only the Legislature in Juneau can rewrite it. Lawmakers reconvene in January with no bill yet introduced to address the conflict. Anyone in the state checking Alaska’s gun laws before buying a suppressor or building a short-barreled rifle should read the statute as it stands today, not as everyone expects it to read next year. That is the mindset piece here. A federal win does not rewrite your state’s felony statute, and until the Legislature does, the prohibition in AS 11.61.200 is still the law of Alaska.
I will continue tracking this as the Alaska Legislature takes it up in January.
