Any Other Weapon (AOW)s in 2026?

[cali_jazz]

Yes, to piggyback off what @cali_jazz said, having an AOW will severely restrict any potential resale due to the fact that you'd need an FFL/SOT of which there are only a few willing to deal with the public in our state and also of course we still have to deal with the ATF not approving AOW stamps still. Though I do have a good feeling something may actually get done here or something gets loose at least, having an AOW in the state of California is a lesson in civics and laws itself. I would not recommend getting an AOW unless you're comfortable with keeping the firearm potentially for the rest of your life. For me, that's okay because the Serbu Super Shorty is SUPER rare and only 6k were ever made and they have a legendary reputation and this is most definitely heirloom material.

But yeah everything else Cali Jazz said is completely 100% on point. Consider all angles before going down this road. Also research lawyers just in case.

Something else to consider occurred to me which is estate planning. What happens upon the death of an NFA item owner?

ChatGPT gave me the following information which talks about NFA trusts

Under federal law, the AOW doesn't simply become another firearm that your heirs can take possession of. The executor of the estate may generally possess it while administering the estate, but before it can be transferred to an heir, an ATF Form 5 (tax-exempt transfer) must be approved. The heir cannot legally take possession until that approval is received.

The California side is where things become less clear. California has an exemption for federally registered AOWs (PC 17710), but I have not been able to find any published California statute, DOJ guidance, or court decision that specifically answers whether a California heir may inherit one through the federal Form 5 process. That doesn't necessarily mean they can't—it simply means there doesn't appear to be a clear published answer.

If no lawful California transfer is available, the executor may instead have to transfer the firearm to someone who can legally possess it (such as an out-of-state buyer where legal), or otherwise lawfully dispose of it. It's not something your heirs can simply divide up like an ordinary firearm.

This is just another practical consideration to add to the list.

 

[M_N04H]

Very willing to keep my Shockwave 590s the rest of my life (assuming my Form 1 clears).

 

[CadeH]

Yes, to piggyback off what @cali_jazz said, having an AOW will severely restrict any potential resale due to the fact that you'd need an FFL/SOT of which there are only a few willing to deal with the public in our state and also of course we still have to deal with the ATF not approving AOW stamps still. Though I do have a good feeling something may actually get done here or something gets loose at least, having an AOW in the state of California is a lesson in civics and laws itself. I would not recommend getting an AOW unless you're comfortable with keeping the firearm potentially for the rest of your life. For me, that's okay because the Serbu Super Shorty is SUPER rare and only 6k were ever made and they have a legendary reputation and this is most definitely heirloom material.

But yeah everything else Cali Jazz said is completely 100% on point. Consider all angles before going down this road. Also research lawyers just in case.

If you want to sell the gun without dealing with Form 4s you can just take it out of an AOW configuration before you sell it. The ATF requests that let them know its permanently no longer an NFA item but there is no legal requirement to do that and legally speaking once it is in an non-NFA configuration it is not an NFA item.

The ATF NFA handbook says that "If the particular feature that causes a firearm to be regulated by the NFA is eliminated or modified, the resulting weapon is no longer an NFA weapon" to be specific

 

[cali_jazz]

If you want to sell the gun without dealing with Form 4s you can just take it out of an AOW configuration before you sell it. The ATF requests that let them know its permanently no longer an NFA item but there is no legal requirement to do that and legally speaking once it is in an non-NFA configuration it is not an NFA item.

The ATF NFA handbook says that "If the particular feature that causes a firearm to be regulated by the NFA is eliminated or modified, the resulting weapon is no longer an NFA weapon" to be specific

Good point, and thanks for posting the citation. I went back and read that section of the NFA Handbook, and you're right—the ATF states that if the feature causing the firearm to be regulated under the NFA is removed or modified, the firearm is no longer an NFA firearm.

That definitely changes the resale discussion. It appears you can return it to a Title I configuration before selling it, rather than having to transfer it as an AOW on a Form 4.

That said, it still seems like a good practice to notify the ATF and request that it be removed from the NFRTR before selling it, even if the handbook doesn't say that's a legal requirement. I'd rather have the registry reflect the firearm's current status than leave any ambiguity for a future buyer.

 

[WojtekWeaponry]

Something else to consider occurred to me which is estate planning. What happens upon the death of an NFA item owner?

ChatGPT gave me the following information which talks about NFA trusts

Under federal law, the AOW doesn't simply become another firearm that your heirs can take possession of. The executor of the estate may generally possess it while administering the estate, but before it can be transferred to an heir, an ATF Form 5 (tax-exempt transfer) must be approved. The heir cannot legally take possession until that approval is received.

The California side is where things become less clear. California has an exemption for federally registered AOWs (PC 17710), but I have not been able to find any published California statute, DOJ guidance, or court decision that specifically answers whether a California heir may inherit one through the federal Form 5 process. That doesn't necessarily mean they can't—it simply means there doesn't appear to be a clear published answer.

If no lawful California transfer is available, the executor may instead have to transfer the firearm to someone who can legally possess it (such as an out-of-state buyer where legal), or otherwise lawfully dispose of it. It's not something your heirs can simply divide up like an ordinary firearm.

This is just another practical consideration to add to the list.

That’s why I get my customers started with trusts.

 

[WojtekWeaponry]

Good point, and thanks for posting the citation. I went back and read that section of the NFA Handbook, and you're right—the ATF states that if the feature causing the firearm to be regulated under the NFA is removed or modified, the firearm is no longer an NFA firearm.

That definitely changes the resale discussion. It appears you can return it to a Title I configuration before selling it, rather than having to transfer it as an AOW on a Form 4.

That said, it still seems like a good practice to notify the ATF and request that it be removed from the NFRTR before selling it, even if the handbook doesn't say that's a legal requirement. I'd rather have the registry reflect the firearm's current status than leave any ambiguity for a future buyer.

This is correct. Also how I get these into CA

 

[TheRatDragon]

This is correct. Also how I get these into CA

Hey Wojtek, I wanted to ask you a question. Would you be willing to be the middleman for one of those Safety Harbor KEG 12 AOWs if the ATF starts approving eForm 1/4s again? They started making them again on Mossberg and Remington receivers and I kinda want one lol

 

[Gawernator]

I’m not getting why a SP5K is being sold here legally since it is a pistol with foregrip as an AOW?

But the flux raider chassis makes it an illegal AW? How is that not also AOW pistol with the foregrip

 

[M_N04H]

I’m not getting why a SP5K is being sold here legally since it is a pistol with foregrip as an AOW?

But the flux raider chassis makes it an illegal AW? How is that not also AOW pistol with the foregrip

Think it's initially sold as SSE, mag lock, etc. After that...

 

[TheRatDragon]

Good point, and thanks for posting the citation. I went back and read that section of the NFA Handbook, and you're right—the ATF states that if the feature causing the firearm to be regulated under the NFA is removed or modified, the firearm is no longer an NFA firearm.

That definitely changes the resale discussion. It appears you can return it to a Title I configuration before selling it, rather than having to transfer it as an AOW on a Form 4.

That said, it still seems like a good practice to notify the ATF and request that it be removed from the NFRTR before selling it, even if the handbook doesn't say that's a legal requirement. I'd rather have the registry reflect the firearm's current status than leave any ambiguity for a future buyer.

Yeah, this is how I was able to get my Serbu Super Shorty transferred to me. It was taken down to a virgin receiver and thus no longer in an AOW configuration and transferred to me as an other as a receiver only. Apparently, 2A Zone has done this for other AOWs before. Since the AOW is technically an SBS under state law but the exemption exempts it from the SBS law, it can be transferred as a receiver only and then with the tax stamp, once fully in my possession I can put it back to an AOW configuration which is what happened. Since AOWs are such a giant grey area under state law, everyone seems to have a different idea on how to transfer it but obviously 2A Zone did it correctly or else I would've been in deep sh*t by now lol.

 

[TheRatDragon]

I’m not getting why a SP5K is being sold here legally since it is a pistol with foregrip as an AOW?

But the flux raider chassis makes it an illegal AW? How is that not also AOW pistol with the foregrip

First and foremost you have to deal with the roster. That's number one. Second off, it has to be maglocked or SSE2'd to be transferred into the state and into an individual's possession. Third off, like mentioned earlier in this thread, it's because of the AW laws. If we didn't have the AWB and Roster bullsh*t, these would be able to be transferred without a tax stamp I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not as knowledgeable on pistol based AOWs as I am on smoothbore AOWs.

 

[M_N04H]

It's not much. But he did reply.

 

[M_N04H]

 

[Gawernator]

Tldr?

 

[M_N04H]

Tldr?

Somehow I'm cheering for the ATF this one time

 

[CadeH]

Tldr?

He is just repeating everything already said here, except also saying that he knew all about this before it became public knowledge.

 

[TheRatDragon]

He is just repeating everything already said here, except also saying that he knew all about this before it became public knowledge.

Yeah, I was aware of this also before it became public knowledge and we first heard about the FFL/SOT getting their AOW seized in mid 2025 not long after I had posted my guide on how to get an AOW on the /r/CAGuns subreddit, an FFL/SOT called Portside Munitions made a comment about them getting one of their AOWs seized by the CADOJ and the whole thread kinda turned into a sh*tshow from there. Basically we confirmed that it was basically an unlawful seizure of personal property lawfully possessed. Anyways a guy named SayNoToCommunism and I were trying to figure out why this happened and we did figure out what happened but we were told not to say anything until Reno went public. Both SayNoToCommunism and I guessed correctly that Reno knew all the details but he wouldn't go into full detail or speak about it at all in the slightest (even though we asked him multiple times to elaborate but he wouldn't) until this video came out. So yeah, everyone knows now.

I still think Portside Munitions is an overpriced bougie ass f*cking gun shop though. Whoever runs their reddit account is a literal assh*le.

 

[TheRatDragon]

Somehow I'm cheering for the ATF this one time

For the first time ever, I am actually rooting for the ATF on this one. This is one of those rare times where the feds are actually in the right and the state DOJ is not only overreaching but actually breaking their own law.

 

[CadeH]

Final Judgement of Silencer Shop Foundation v ATF:

The Court’s permanent injunction does not extend to the NFA’s regulation of “anyother weapon” as it relates to the Jensen plaintiffs. See 26 U.S.C. § 5845(a)(5), (e).

Permanent Injunction on AOWs only applies to the original plaintiffs on Silencer Shop v ATF, not any new plaintiffs added when Jensen was consolidated with it. The original
Silencer Shop Foundation v ATF plaintiffs were the following:

Silencerco Weapons Research, LLC (d/b/a Silencerco), Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition Inc, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Brady Wetz, B&T USA, LLC, Silencer Shop Foundation, Palmetto State Armory, LLC.

Gun Owners of America members enjoy a permanent injunction on the federal registration requirements for Any Other Weapons.

PC 17710 (a):

(a) The provisions listed in Section 16590 do not apply to “any other weapon” as defined in subsection (e) of Section 5845 of Title 26 of the United States Code, which is in the possession of a person permitted to possess the weapons under the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-618),  1 as amended, and the regulations issued pursuant thereto.

Under the Silencer Shop decision any plaintiff part of the case preconsolidation with Jensen will now be on the federal level legally permitted under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 to possess Any Other Weapons in the same manner as they would non-NFA shotguns, pistols, or rifles. CA law only requires that they be possessed by a person permitted to do so by the GCA.

I believe that starting tomorrow we will be able to have them here again. The saga is over.

 

[TheRatDragon]

Final Judgement of Silencer Shop Foundation v ATF:


Permanent Injunction on AOWs only applies to the original plaintiffs on Silencer Shop v ATF, not any new plaintiffs added when Jensen was consolidated with it. The original
Silencer Shop Foundation v ATF plaintiffs were the following:

Silencerco Weapons Research, LLC (d/b/a Silencerco), Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition Inc, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Inc., Brady Wetz, B&T USA, LLC, Silencer Shop Foundation, Palmetto State Armory, LLC.

Gun Owners of America members enjoy a permanent injunction on the federal registration requirements for Any Other Weapons.

PC 17710 (a):


Under the Silencer Shop decision any plaintiff part of the case preconsolidation with Jensen will now be on the federal level legally permitted under the Federal Gun Control Act of 1968 to possess Any Other Weapons in the same manner as they would non-NFA shotguns, pistols, or rifles. CA law only requires that they be possessed by a person permitted to do so by the GCA.

I believe that starting tomorrow we will be able to have them here again. The saga is over.

If anyone signed up today, would it apply to them or just GOA members pre deadline?