Florida’s Nov. 6 SBR/SBS Memo: The AG’s Interpretation and Its Limits

Bottom line up front: Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier's Nov. 6 memorandum says his office will not defend a § 790.221 conviction on appeal based solely on an SBR or SBS owner's missing NFA approval, registration or federal tax stamp. It also gives his broader reading of Florida law. That is guidance, not a repeal of § 790.221 or a binding court ruling, and it is not federal permission to make, transfer or possess an unregistered firearm. AG memorandum, pp. 4–5

On November 6, 2026, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier published a five-page memorandum addressed to Florida’s law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities. His accompanying X post said law-abiding Floridians could possess short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) without NFA registration or a tax stamp under Florida law. That is the attorney general’s position—not a new statute or a binding court ruling. AG post and memorandum, p. 1

The memo’s specific commitment is narrower than a blanket assurance against prosecution: “My office will not defend a conviction under section 790.221 on appeal on the sole basis that the owner of the SBR or SBS lacked NFA approval, registration, or a federal tax stamp.” Its enforcement guidance concerns “present possession of covered items,” takes effect immediately, and is conditioned on no taxes being imposed on SBRs and SBSs. AG memorandum, pp. 4–5

What Florida’s statute says#

Section 790.221 prohibits owning or possessing an SBR, SBS or machine gun that is, or may readily be made, operable, excludes antique firearms, and makes a violation a second-degree felony. Subsection (3) excepts firearms “lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law.” That wording remains in the published 2026 Florida Statutes. Fla. Stat. § 790.221 (2026)

The AG reads the exception to mean Florida does not independently criminalize SBR/SBS possession when those firearms may lawfully be owned and possessed under federal law. He relies on Rinzler v. Carson, ambiguity principles and constitutional avoidance. Those are the memo’s reasons; the memo does not itself resolve how a court would apply the exception to every unregistered firearm. AG memorandum, p. 3

The distinction matters because a federal decision not to enforce a requirement is not the same as Congress repealing it. Whether particular possession satisfies Florida’s federal-law exception cannot safely be reduced to “the tax is zero, so possession is lawful.” Florida’s federal-law exception; AG’s interpretation; enacted tax amendment, § 70436; court opinion, pp. 61–66

The federal developments behind the memo#

Congress enacted the tax change on July 4, 2025. The $0 NFA making and transfer rates took effect January 1, 2026 for covered firearms other than machineguns and destructive devices, including SBRs, SBSs, silencers and the statutory “any other weapon” category. Machineguns and destructive devices retain the $200 rates. The tax amendment did not repeal the NFA’s application, approval or registration provisions. Pub. L. 119-21 § 70436, 139 Stat. 247–248

On August 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the challenged NFA provisions exceeded Congress’s enumerated powers for untaxed firearms. In Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, it granted a permanent injunction for specified plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members and customers—not everyone nationwide. Customer relief is limited to transactions with the plaintiffs and their commercial members. The court did not decide the Second Amendment claims. DOJ’s September 24 letter to the House Speaker says it determined not to file an appeal. Silencer Shop opinion, pp. 61–66; DOJ nonappeal letter, Sept. 24, 2026

The Florida memo also says ATF adopted broader nationwide nonenforcement on October 9 and temporarily stopped enforcing the separate § 922(b)(4) authorization requirement for licensed SBR/SBS transfers. We independently confirmed ATF’s announcement that it published guidance, but could not retrieve the full letter or FAQ for this review. Those policy details are therefore reported as the Florida AG’s description, not independently verified assurances of federal legality. AG memorandum, p. 2; ATF’s Oct. 9 public announcement

What the memo tells agencies—and what it does not do#

The memorandum says mere SBR/SBS possession does not supply reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a search or seizure, and discovery during an otherwise lawful encounter does not by itself justify a plain-view evidentiary seizure. These are the AG’s stated guidance. The memo also announces his office’s limited appeal-defense policy. AG memorandum, pp. 4–5

State attorneys have trial-level prosecution duties under Fla. Const. art. V, § 17 and Fla. Stat. § 27.02(1). Section 16.01(4) addresses the attorney general’s representation of the State in Florida’s appellate courts. In Hardee County v. FINR II, slip op. p. 5, Florida’s Supreme Court explained that an attorney general’s opinion is not binding on a court, although it is entitled to careful consideration and generally regarded as highly persuasive. The memo is not an injunction against every police agency or state attorney, and the appeal-defense commitment is not a promise that no arrest, charge or conviction can occur. AG memorandum, pp. 4–5

Federal obligations remain a separate question#

The federal statutory text still contains making, transfer and registration requirements. Their enforcement must be distinguished from the tax amendment, the covered-party court injunction and the policy described in the memo. This article does not establish that an unregistered firearm may lawfully be made, transferred or possessed under federal law. 26 U.S.C. § 5812; § 5822; § 5841; § 5861; 2025 tax amendment; 2026 limited-injunction opinion; DOJ letter

ATF’s own October 9 public post says requirements remain for Form 4473, NICS checks, compliance with state/local law, and Form 20 for interstate transport of SBRs/SBSs. The Florida memo qualifies the transport requirement: prior authorization is required when 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4) applies; statutory exemptions remain applicable. Applicable prohibited-person, location, dealer and business-tax requirements are not erased by this memo. It is not permission to take a firearm into another state or a restricted location. ATF’s Oct. 9 post; AG memorandum, pp. 4–5; 18 U.S.C. § 922; court opinion, pp. 7–10

The memo says ATF accepts voluntary applications but does not promise later registration or grandfathering if policy changes. We have not independently verified the full current ATF procedures. Do not treat a future application as a guaranteed cure for an already unregistered firearm. AG memorandum, pp. 4–5

Bottom line#

The verified development is the AG’s announced interpretation and limited appeal-defense policy. Section 790.221 has not been repealed by this memorandum, and Florida’s federal-law exception still makes the federal distinction important. Readers should not treat the memo, this article, or the $0 tax as blanket permission to make, transfer or possess an unregistered firearm.

Primary sources: AG post and memorandum images, 2026 Florida statute, enacted tax amendment, Silencer Shop opinion, DOJ letter, ATF public announcement, Florida Supreme Court on AG opinions, Florida Constitution, state-attorney duties, AG appellate duties, 26 U.S.C. § 5812, § 5822, § 5841, § 5845, § 5861, 18 U.S.C. § 922. The federal code links are to the 2024 edition, read together with the enacted 2025 tax amendment and the 2026 court and DOJ documents. The memorandum was independently reviewed in the AG’s official X images; the AG-site PDF could not be independently retrieved.

This is reference information, not legal advice.