User Panel
Posted: 9/15/2023 11:41:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: prebans]
Just had two 5320.20 for DDs to SD returned disapproved "per state law." On hold with ATF now. Is there some new weird law out there that I don't know about? I've had them approved previously.
|
|
|
That's extremely odd. As far as I know nothing has changed there and both ExDDs and LBDDs are legal.
|
|
|
Originally Posted By Third_Rail: That's extremely odd. As far as I know nothing has changed there and both ExDDs and LBDDs are legal. View Quote Just spoke to the disapproving examiner. Very nice lady. She cited SD 22-1-2, which looks like the criminal chapter. She acknowledged that all of my SD DD forms were approved previously and gave me her email address in case I hear anything from a SD government official on the matter. I did some quick Googling and found two statutes which appear to allow papered DDs. I sent those to her and asked for her comment. Interstate transport of DDs has caused disapprovals in MI and now SD. I cleared up MI. Hopefully I can clear up SD too. |
|
|
Originally Posted By prebans: Just spoke to the disapproving examiner. Very nice lady. She cited SD 22-1-2, which looks like the criminal chapter. She acknowledged that all of my SD DD forms were approved previously and gave me her email address in case I hear anything from a SD government official on the matter. I did some quick Googling and found two statutes which appear to allow papered DDs. I sent those to her and asked for her comment. Interstate transport of DDs has caused disapprovals in MI and now SD. I cleared up MI. Hopefully I can clear up SD too. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By prebans: Originally Posted By Third_Rail: That's extremely odd. As far as I know nothing has changed there and both ExDDs and LBDDs are legal. Just spoke to the disapproving examiner. Very nice lady. She cited SD 22-1-2, which looks like the criminal chapter. She acknowledged that all of my SD DD forms were approved previously and gave me her email address in case I hear anything from a SD government official on the matter. I did some quick Googling and found two statutes which appear to allow papered DDs. I sent those to her and asked for her comment. Interstate transport of DDs has caused disapprovals in MI and now SD. I cleared up MI. Hopefully I can clear up SD too. That law applies only to the commission of a crime if such weapons were involved. Absurd how much the ATF just phones it in and errs on the side of everything being illegal. |
|
|
Update: The examiner acknowledged the information via email and said she'd pass it to her supervisor for review.
|
|
|
Originally Posted By prebans: Just had two 5320.20 for DDs to SD returned disapproved "per state law." On hold with ATF now. Is there some new weird law out there that I don't know about? I've had them approved previously. View Quote Same here in PA and I'm a FFL 10 (Manufacturer of Destructive Devices). |
|
FFL 07 / FFL 10 / FEL 20 / SOT 02 / ITAR / SAM CAGE 9FUK6 / PA Certified Blaster
|
Originally Posted By prebans: Just had two 5320.20 for DDs to SD returned disapproved "per state law." On hold with ATF now. Is there some new weird law out there that I don't know about? I've had them approved previously. View Quote Ha yep, they are doing that currently Im meeting with my (SD) legislators here soon to discuss fixing it legally My interim solution was to get an explosives manufacturer permit DM me your phone number if you'd be so kind and we can tackle this one together if you would like. SD codified law: Defining a Destructive Device (13) “Destructive device,” (a) Any bomb, grenade, explosive missile, or similar device or any launching device therefor; or and S. D. Codified Laws § 22-1-2. Any person who possesses any substance, material, or any combination of substances or materials, with intent to make a destructive device without first obtaining a permit from Department of Public Safety to make said device is guilty of a Felony. § 22-14A-13. Further investigation of the SD codified laws leads to 22-14A-21. Possession of registered or licensed destructive devices permitted. Any person may possess destructive devices that are registered with, or licensed by, the state or federal government pursuant to law. Clearly the law is to stop people from making pipebombs/charge them before they injure people with them. But evidently the atf interpretation of the chickenbones means no DDs for the time being. |
|
|
Originally Posted By 7insert: Ha yep, they are doing that currently Im meeting with my (SD) legislators here soon to discuss fixing it legally My interim solution was to get an explosives manufacturer permit DM me your phone number if you'd be so kind and we can tackle this one together if you would like. SD codified law: Defining a Destructive Device (13) “Destructive device,” (a) Any bomb, grenade, explosive missile, or similar device or any launching device therefor; or and S. D. Codified Laws § 22-1-2. Any person who possesses any substance, material, or any combination of substances or materials, with intent to make a destructive device without first obtaining a permit from Department of Public Safety to make said device is guilty of a Felony. § 22-14A-13. Further investigation of the SD codified laws leads to 22-14A-21. Possession of registered or licensed destructive devices permitted. Any person may possess destructive devices that are registered with, or licensed by, the state or federal government pursuant to law. Clearly the law is to stop people from making pipebombs/charge them before they injure people with them. But evidently the atf interpretation of the chickenbones means no DDs for the time being. View Quote Can you ask the department of public safety for a permit? |
|
|
Originally Posted By SGT-Fish: Can you ask the department of public safety for a permit? View Quote Rewind to February when I sent in a F1 for a DD. ATF sat on it for 3mo and then said "Great its approved but, now can you send your permit?" to which I was as confused as OP to lol. After researching, turns out there is no such thing in SD as a "Destructive Device Permit" and they arent issued. Told my examiner this and tried to argue that the law is clearly in a criminal scope and not an outright prohibition, but alas they told me to get bent. So that started me on this journey: Within DPS, the fire marshal's office handles explosives permitting. This is because he is required by law to distribute magazine locations to fire departments in the state in the name of public safety. Now traditionally these permits 1:1 mirror your ATF FEL, obviously you dont need one for a F1 or 5320.20 for "launcher type" DDs. After talking to the fire marshal who was super understanding, he said no problem on his end and he would issue a permit with zero provisions for a magazine for this specific use case. If I had a good spot for a magazine I would have just went full send and grabbed a FEL at the same time. The permit is free and basically an abbreviated 4473, I sent in for mine a month or so ago after discussing the issue with him. Still waiting for it to kick back. The irony is that in 2018 I moved here and 5320.20'd 1% of the total DDs in the state here without a care in the world. I can see them being dicks about the form 1 but the 5320.20 is totally wrong interpretation of state law in my not a lawyer opinion. I say this because; 22-14A-21. Possession of registered or licensed destructive devices permitted. Any person may possess destructive devices that are registered with, or licensed by, the state or federal government pursuant to law. 5320.20 is pretty damn registered/licensed by the federal government pursuant to law. But ATF reads the two earlier sections of the law and then straight up stopped which is wholesale wrong. |
|
|
Originally Posted By 7insert: Rewind to February when I sent in a F1 for a DD. ATF sat on it for 3mo and then said "Great its approved but, now can you send your permit?" to which I was as confused as OP to lol. After researching, turns out there is no such thing in SD as a "Destructive Device Permit" and they arent issued. Told my examiner this and tried to argue that the law is clearly in a criminal scope and not an outright prohibition, but alas they told me to get bent. So that started me on this journey: Within DPS, the fire marshal's office handles explosives permitting. This is because he is required by law to distribute magazine locations to fire departments in the state in the name of public safety. Now traditionally these permits 1:1 mirror your ATF FEL, obviously you dont need one for a F1 or 5320.20 for "launcher type" DDs. After talking to the fire marshal who was super understanding, he said no problem on his end and he would issue a permit with zero provisions for a magazine for this specific use case. If I had a good spot for a magazine I would have just went full send and grabbed a FEL at the same time. The permit is free and basically an abbreviated 4473, I sent in for mine a month or so ago after discussing the issue with him. Still waiting for it to kick back. The irony is that in 2018 I moved here and 5320.20'd 1% of the total DDs in the state here without a care in the world. I can see them being dicks about the form 1 but the 5320.20 is totally wrong interpretation of state law in my not a lawyer opinion. I say this because; 22-14A-21. Possession of registered or licensed destructive devices permitted. Any person may possess destructive devices that are registered with, or licensed by, the state or federal government pursuant to law. 5320.20 is pretty damn registered/licensed by the federal government pursuant to law. But ATF reads the two earlier sections of the law and then straight up stopped which is wholesale wrong. View Quote Oh god. You’re going through similar things to what we went through. I’m in WI. We have a very old archaic law on the books about machine guns needing permission from any chief of police or any county sheriff to possess a machine gun. It was never enforced until ATF did some review of all state laws (according to them) and found it. The then-new AG, a Republican no less, said that he considers it valid after the old AG (a Democrat) said it was archaic. The other problem is that there’s another provision for C&Rs to deactivate a DEWAT and another provision about this only applying to “pistol caliber” machine guns. But they never defined “pistol caliber.” (My guess is that it relates to Thompsons because we had a lot of gangster issues up here due to our proximity to Chicago.) ATF quietly ignores parts of the law and makes it up as they go along. It became accepted that we need a letter from a CLEO. At first they demanded our home CLEO. They eventually bent on that and recognized any CLEO. But now they’re establishing expiration dates for the CLEO letter, which is absolutely nowhere in law. How that affects people who bought or inherited one MG years or decades ago is beyond me. It’s also why we never have MG shoots here. Travelers can’t get letters easily and no CLEO wants to be the one whose name is attached to an event. Sent you my number. Like you, I’ve got prior approved 5320.20 forms for DDs in SD. Let me know how I can help. |
|
|
Originally Posted By prebans: Oh god. You’re going through similar things to what we went through. I’m in WI. We have a very old archaic law on the books about machine guns needing permission from any chief of police or any county sheriff to possess a machine gun. It was never enforced until ATF did some review of all state laws (according to them) and found it. The then-new AG, a Republican no less, said that he considers it valid after the old AG (a Democrat) said it was archaic. The other problem is that there’s another provision for C&Rs to deactivate a DEWAT and another provision about this only applying to “pistol caliber” machine guns. But they never defined “pistol caliber.” (My guess is that it relates to Thompsons because we had a lot of gangster issues up here due to our proximity to Chicago.) ATF quietly ignores parts of the law and makes it up as they go along. It became accepted that we need a letter from a CLEO. At first they demanded our home CLEO. They eventually bent on that and recognized any CLEO. But now they’re establishing expiration dates for the CLEO letter, which is absolutely nowhere in law. How that affects people who bought or inherited one MG years or decades ago is beyond me. It’s also why we never have MG shoots here. Travelers can’t get letters easily and no CLEO wants to be the one whose name is attached to an event. Sent you my number. Like you, I’ve got prior approved 5320.20 forms for DDs in SD. Let me know how I can help. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By prebans: Originally Posted By 7insert: Rewind to February when I sent in a F1 for a DD. ATF sat on it for 3mo and then said "Great its approved but, now can you send your permit?" to which I was as confused as OP to lol. After researching, turns out there is no such thing in SD as a "Destructive Device Permit" and they arent issued. Told my examiner this and tried to argue that the law is clearly in a criminal scope and not an outright prohibition, but alas they told me to get bent. So that started me on this journey: Within DPS, the fire marshal's office handles explosives permitting. This is because he is required by law to distribute magazine locations to fire departments in the state in the name of public safety. Now traditionally these permits 1:1 mirror your ATF FEL, obviously you dont need one for a F1 or 5320.20 for "launcher type" DDs. After talking to the fire marshal who was super understanding, he said no problem on his end and he would issue a permit with zero provisions for a magazine for this specific use case. If I had a good spot for a magazine I would have just went full send and grabbed a FEL at the same time. The permit is free and basically an abbreviated 4473, I sent in for mine a month or so ago after discussing the issue with him. Still waiting for it to kick back. The irony is that in 2018 I moved here and 5320.20'd 1% of the total DDs in the state here without a care in the world. I can see them being dicks about the form 1 but the 5320.20 is totally wrong interpretation of state law in my not a lawyer opinion. I say this because; 22-14A-21. Possession of registered or licensed destructive devices permitted. Any person may possess destructive devices that are registered with, or licensed by, the state or federal government pursuant to law. 5320.20 is pretty damn registered/licensed by the federal government pursuant to law. But ATF reads the two earlier sections of the law and then straight up stopped which is wholesale wrong. Oh god. You’re going through similar things to what we went through. I’m in WI. We have a very old archaic law on the books about machine guns needing permission from any chief of police or any county sheriff to possess a machine gun. It was never enforced until ATF did some review of all state laws (according to them) and found it. The then-new AG, a Republican no less, said that he considers it valid after the old AG (a Democrat) said it was archaic. The other problem is that there’s another provision for C&Rs to deactivate a DEWAT and another provision about this only applying to “pistol caliber” machine guns. But they never defined “pistol caliber.” (My guess is that it relates to Thompsons because we had a lot of gangster issues up here due to our proximity to Chicago.) ATF quietly ignores parts of the law and makes it up as they go along. It became accepted that we need a letter from a CLEO. At first they demanded our home CLEO. They eventually bent on that and recognized any CLEO. But now they’re establishing expiration dates for the CLEO letter, which is absolutely nowhere in law. How that affects people who bought or inherited one MG years or decades ago is beyond me. It’s also why we never have MG shoots here. Travelers can’t get letters easily and no CLEO wants to be the one whose name is attached to an event. Sent you my number. Like you, I’ve got prior approved 5320.20 forms for DDs in SD. Let me know how I can help. Look at the silver lining. This sort of combing through unenforced State laws by the ATF will lead to said States being pushed to clean up outdated/unenforced laws. |
|
|
...or not. Wisconsin was a soup sandwich with a conservative majority. Now it has a dem gov and dem Supreme Court. If laws are changed, it won't be for the better.
|
|
|
Originally Posted By Third_Rail: Look at the silver lining. This sort of combing through unenforced State laws by the ATF will lead to said States being pushed to clean up outdated/unenforced laws. View Quote @third_rail You're assuming that they won't be cleaned up with ugly results for us. |
|
|
Originally Posted By prebans: @third_rail You're assuming that they won't be cleaned up with ugly results for us. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By prebans: Originally Posted By Third_Rail: Look at the silver lining. This sort of combing through unenforced State laws by the ATF will lead to said States being pushed to clean up outdated/unenforced laws. @third_rail You're assuming that they won't be cleaned up with ugly results for us. Fair point. I prefer to stay positive - especially with the direction a lot of the country is going as far as firearms ownership and interest in NFA. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Third_Rail: Fair point. I prefer to stay positive - especially with the direction a lot of the country is going as far as firearms ownership and interest in NFA. View Quote SD is still on a freedom trend, so there's that. That being said, laws are influenced things like the Sturgis Rally, e.g. you can't legally carry firearms on a motorcylce in this "constitutional carry" state. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Third_Rail: Look at the silver lining. This sort of combing through unenforced State laws by the ATF will lead to said States being pushed to clean up outdated/unenforced laws. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By Third_Rail: Look at the silver lining. This sort of combing through unenforced State laws by the ATF will lead to said States being pushed to clean up outdated/unenforced laws. SD is the only state out of the dozen ive lived in where everytime I make the dreaded call to deal with some facet of govt BS revolving around firearms (tax, zoning, licensing, etc ) everyone involved is very happy to help and chocks up the federal BS to oversight. Very refreshing to have humans and not assholes in govt for the most part. Originally Posted By NAM: ...or not. Wisconsin was a soup sandwich with a conservative majority. Now it has a dem gov and dem Supreme Court. If laws are changed, it won't be for the better. Not to get too far off topic but WI and most of the midwest was always "soft red" in the case that it was mostly RINOs trying to fill their own bank accounts, SD had the same stuff up until our current governor. Daugaard dropping constitutional carry because "we arent ready for it" ? Get out of town with that BS, Noem signed it as her first law and the SD freedom caucus is pressing hard to make this place a bastion of freedom/right aligned views. |
|
|
Originally Posted By Third_Rail: Fair point. I prefer to stay positive - especially with the direction a lot of the country is going as far as firearms ownership and interest in NFA. View Quote @third_rail That's fair. Things are at a hard-fought stalemate here, and we've got concerns given how our state supreme court just tipped liberal and anti-gun. I am very concerned and worried on a WI state level. But nationally we are doing better. |
|
|
Not-much-of-an-update:
Emailed the examiner today asking how things are going with this SD DD issue. She replied that nothing has happened either way but would keep me posted. |
|
|
Originally Posted By prebans: @third_rail That's fair. Things are at a hard-fought stalemate here, and we've got concerns given how our state supreme court just tipped liberal and anti-gun. I am very concerned and worried on a WI state level. But nationally we are doing better. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By prebans: @third_rail That's fair. Things are at a hard-fought stalemate here, and we've got concerns given how our state supreme court just tipped liberal and anti-gun. I am very concerned and worried on a WI state level. But nationally we are doing better. I knew you weren't in SD if you were filing a form 20 - but I didn't know where you were. Sorry to hear that WI isn't doing so well! I hope that isn't the case going forward. Originally Posted By prebans: Not-much-of-an-update: Emailed the examiner today asking how things are going with this SD DD issue. She replied that nothing has happened either way but would keep me posted. Stay on them about it. Based on my past experience with the NFA branch it'll likely go untouched if you don't. Be polite of course - but be that proverbial squeaky wheel! |
|
|
Originally Posted By Third_Rail: I knew you weren't in SD if you were filing a form 20 - but I didn't know where you were. Sorry to hear that WI isn't doing so well! I hope that isn't the case going forward. Stay on them about it. Based on my past experience with the NFA branch it'll likely go untouched if you don't. Be polite of course - but be that proverbial squeaky wheel! View Quote Yeah, we’re in this nervous stage right now where things will either co tiny ear a stalemate or go south. As for the NFA branch, definitely. Learned early as a SOT that “polite persistence” is how one gets anywhere. |
|
|
New update: This morning I woke to an email from the examiner. She stated that this one is going to counsel, that it may take a while for an answer, and apologized for the inconvenience.
My thoughts: If there's any pressure which can be brought to bear on SD state officials, an official letter or communication from them may short-circuit the process. Given my travel plans, I think I'm going to re-route through ND until this gets resolved. It'll add a few hours of driving, but it's not like I have much of a choice. Time to submit yet more paperwork..... |
|
|
Originally Posted By adversor: SD is still on a freedom trend, so there's that. That being said, laws are influenced things like the Sturgis Rally, e.g. you can't legally carry firearms on a motorcylce in this "constitutional carry" state. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Originally Posted By adversor: Originally Posted By Third_Rail: Fair point. I prefer to stay positive - especially with the direction a lot of the country is going as far as firearms ownership and interest in NFA. SD is still on a freedom trend, so there's that. That being said, laws are influenced things like the Sturgis Rally, e.g. you can't legally carry firearms on a motorcylce in this "constitutional carry" state. You certainly can carry on a motorcycle. That was changed some years ago. |
|
"Republic, I like the sound of the word. It means people can live free, talk free, go or come, buy or sell, be drunk or sober however they choose." John Wayne
|
A general update: Three months later, I asked ATF for an update. No movement on it at all.
|
|
|
Cross posting this from the SD Hometown thread:
Update on this: Fire Marshal (His office handles explosives permitting) is now working with ATF trying to get to bottom of this. He apologized for delay on it, it was from the state legal end. He looked as far back as records showed and there is zero history of issuing of "DD permits" in SD and his office is not equipped to issue them. I wont speak for him but overall the feeling I got was that he has little interest in blocking DDs or handling licensing. All this with a promise of an update later this week hopefully. |
|
|
Originally Posted By 7insert: Cross posting this from the SD Hometown thread: Update on this: Fire Marshal (His office handles explosives permitting) is now working with ATF trying to get to bottom of this. He apologized for delay on it, it was from the state legal end. He looked as far back as records showed and there is zero history of issuing of "DD permits" in SD and his office is not equipped to issue them. I wont speak for him but overall the feeling I got was that he has little interest in blocking DDs or handling licensing. All this with a promise of an update later this week hopefully. View Quote It was good hearing rom you yesterday, and I really hope this gets resolved. How a Lahti is a fire/explosives risk is beyond me. |
|
|
Cross posting this from the SD Hometown thread:
Got a DD 5320.20 approved for SD. I called the Souix Falls IOI and left a voicemail. He called back and we talked. I emailed him a request for the 5320.20 which he passed to NFA, NFA quickly replied back that 22-14A-13 (https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/22-14A-13) required a permit. Emailed the IOI back with SD CL 22-14A-21 (https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/22-14A-21), IOI passed it to the Industry Processing Branch of NFA Division, They asked for a new 5320.20 to be emailed in, couple hours later they emailed back a 5320.20 for a Form 1 Destructive Device being permanently moved into South Dakota. Further forms should be approved based upon this new interpretation of the legal code I provided them. If anyone hits walls on this in the future please send me a PM and I will give you even more support. This concludes a year long battle between state and federal agencies. |
|
|
Awesome!!
@7insert Great job! |
|
|
Nice job getting that worked out. We also had success with getting the ATF to allow us to build DD's with HE in PA. They are now approving them without issue.
|
|
FFL 10 / FEL 20 / SOT 02 / PA Certified High-Explosive Blaster
|
Originally Posted By 7insert: Cross posting this from the SD Hometown thread: Got a DD 5320.20 approved for SD. I called the Souix Falls IOI and left a voicemail. He called back and we talked. I emailed him a request for the 5320.20 which he passed to NFA, NFA quickly replied back that 22-14A-13 (https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/22-14A-13) required a permit. Emailed the IOI back with SD CL 22-14A-21 (https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/22-14A-21), IOI passed it to the Industry Processing Branch of NFA Division, They asked for a new 5320.20 to be emailed in, couple hours later they emailed back a 5320.20 for a Form 1 Destructive Device being permanently moved into South Dakota. Further forms should be approved based upon this new interpretation of the legal code I provided them. If anyone hits walls on this in the future please send me a PM and I will give you even more support. This concludes a year long battle between state and federal agencies. View Quote NICE WORK! |
|
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.