Alaska Acting Attorney General Urges Fix for Suppressor and Short-Barreled Firearm Gray Area

Alaska gun owners face an unusual conflict between state law and current federal enforcement policy involving suppressors and some short-barreled rifles and shotguns. Acting Attorney General Cori Mills is asking the Alaska Legislature to clarify the law after a federal court ruling and subsequent ATF guidance disrupted the federal registration framework referenced by Alaska’s criminal statute.

The development is favorable to Second Amendment rights at the federal level, but it does not automatically erase Alaska’s existing statute. That distinction is why state officials, legislators and gun dealers are urging caution until lawmakers provide a clearer path for lawful possession.

What Changed

On Aug. 5, a United States District Court ruled in Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives that certain National Firearms Act registration and regulatory requirements could not be enforced against the plaintiffs. Alaska was among the plaintiffs, along with 14 other states, six businesses and associations, a nonprofit organization and an individual gun owner.

The case followed a major federal tax change. Congress eliminated the $200 federal making and transfer taxes for the affected items through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, effective Jan. 1, 2026, but left federal approval and registration requirements in place. The plaintiffs argued that the federal government no longer had authority to enforce those requirements after Congress removed the taxes supporting the regulatory system. The district court agreed, and the U.S. Department of Justice did not appeal.

Although the ruling formally applied only to the plaintiffs, the ATF later announced that it would stop enforcing the affected approval and registration requirements nationwide. The agency also said it would continue accepting voluntary registrations because some state laws—including Alaska’s—refer to federal registration.

That federal shift exposed a problem in Alaska gun laws. Existing state law makes possession of certain prohibited weapons a criminal offense but provides an affirmative defense for a person who has complied with federal registration requirements. Federal authorities are no longer enforcing the affected requirements, yet Alaska’s statutory language remains in place.

Sen. Scott Kawasaki, a Fairbanks Democrat, has pre-filed Senate Bill 243 to bring state law into line with the federal change. The proposal has not been enacted, and the source provides no effective date for it. Republican Rep. Mike Prax also says he is working with colleagues on a companion bill for the upcoming legislative session.

What This Means for Gun Owners in Alaska

The practical issue is that federal non-enforcement does not necessarily provide a complete answer under Alaska law. A suppressor or affected short-barreled firearm may no longer be subject to the same federal approval and registration enforcement, but Alaska’s current statute still relies on compliance with that federal system as an affirmative defense.

For gun owners, an affirmative defense is not the same thing as language declaring possession lawful from the outset. It is a defense identified in the statute for someone accused under the state prohibition. The source does not establish how an Alaska court would apply that defense when federal registration is voluntary rather than federally enforced.

That uncertainty affects Alaskans who currently possess, want to acquire or may transfer the covered items. It may also affect dealers trying to advise customers while federal policy and state statutory language point in different directions. The source does not provide a new state-approved purchase or possession procedure, and it does not say that Senate Bill 243 has passed either legislative chamber.

ATF has said it will continue to accept voluntary registrations. However, the source does not establish that voluntary registration will resolve every possible issue under Alaska law, nor does it say that choosing not to register is automatically lawful under the state statute. Owners should not treat the federal enforcement announcement as if the Alaska Legislature had already repealed or amended the state prohibition.

The Alaska Department of Law is attempting to reduce the immediate risk of inconsistent enforcement. Mills said the department has asked law enforcement agencies to work closely with state prosecutors before charges are filed under the affected statute. The department says it will evaluate potential cases while considering the federal court decision, ATF guidance and constitutional issues.

That prosecutorial review is important, but it is not a permanent statutory fix or a guarantee that no case will be filed. The Department of Law’s position recognizes that the law is in flux; it does not give individual owners a substitute for advice based on their particular facts.

Gun shops are also urging buyers to proceed carefully. As one Alaska dealer noted in the source, the ATF’s nationwide position is an enforcement policy rather than a new federal law and could change. Anyone considering an affected item should understand both the current federal process and the unresolved Alaska provision before taking possession or changing how an existing item is handled.

Gun owners can review agency information through the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and follow Alaska legislation through the official Alaska Legislature website. These primary sources are more reliable than social-media summaries or assumptions based solely on the removal of the $200 tax.

What Stays the Same

Alaska’s statute has not yet been changed. Possession of the weapons covered by that statute remains framed as a criminal offense, with an affirmative defense tied to federal registration compliance. The source does not provide a penalty, so gun owners should not rely on unsupported claims about the possible charge or punishment.

The federal tax change also did not itself repeal every part of the National Firearms Act framework. Congress eliminated the $200 making and transfer taxes for the affected items as of Jan. 1, 2026, while leaving registration and approval language in place. It was the later district court ruling, followed by ATF’s nationwide enforcement announcement, that changed how the affected requirements are being enforced.

ATF continues to accept voluntary registrations. The source does not say that the federal registration system has disappeared, that existing registrations have been canceled or that every firearm regulated under the National Firearms Act is covered by the court’s decision and agency guidance.

The district court ruling also has not been overturned or appealed by the Department of Justice. Even so, the immediate Alaska problem remains because the ruling did not rewrite the wording of the state criminal statute. Only the Alaska Legislature can enact the statutory clarification Mills is requesting.

Nothing in the source establishes changes to unrelated Alaska gun laws. Owners should therefore avoid reading this development as a general repeal of state firearms restrictions or as a blanket exemption covering items beyond the suppressors and certain short-barreled rifles and shotguns discussed in the case.

What Happens Next

The next major step is legislative action. Kawasaki says Senate Bill 243 was introduced in late February, before the federal court decision, to address the expected conflict. He hopes lawmakers can pass it early in the next session and says both Democratic and Republican legislators appear willing to move the issue forward.

Kawasaki said the bill did not pass during the previous session because other legislative priorities, including attention focused on the liquefied natural gas line, took precedence. Its prior introduction does not mean it is now law. It still must complete the legislative process.

Prax says he supports Mills and the Department of Law and is working on a House companion bill. A companion measure could allow the House and Senate to work on parallel versions, but the source gives no bill number for the House proposal, no scheduled hearing, no committee vote and no final vote result.

Until legislation is enacted, Alaska law enforcement agencies have been asked to consult state prosecutors before filing charges under the affected statute. Prosecutors will consider the court ruling, ATF guidance and constitutional concerns on a case-by-case basis. That interim approach may help avoid premature charges, but it leaves owners without the certainty that a clear statutory amendment could provide.

Mills described the federal decision as a victory against overreach while emphasizing that Alaskans still need an understandable legal route to ownership. Her request places responsibility on the Legislature to reconcile Alaska’s statute with the changed federal environment rather than leaving gun owners, dealers, police and prosecutors to interpret conflicting rules.

BT Gun Company will continue following this issue for Alaska gun owners and readers nationwide. Follow our Second Amendment news for updates as Senate Bill 243 and any House companion move forward.

When you are ready to shop firearms, visit BT Gun Company and work with a licensed FFL dealer. Laws and enforcement policies can change, so confirm current requirements with official Alaska sources or a qualified attorney before acting.