I need your help in an ongoing argument with the ATF.  

I already know of

"Zombies"
"Because it's cool"
"Protection from Zombies"
"For shooting things"

Not planning - current engaged in, and running into ATF resistance.  

Have you gotten these reasons APPROVED, and have the tax stamps with them?

I am not looking for ideas.  I've already submitted a form and am now arguing with the ATF about it.


What I am looking for in this thread are humorous or witty reasons that have been approved!!

Some people just gotta poke a sleeping dog.

No prob - those are all great suggestions , just not what I'm looking for right now.

Of course now - that would be silly


I put down "Preparation for possible space alien invasion, zombie uprising or other post-apocalyptic scenario"

Given that stuff like "Zombies" and "Protection from Zombies" has already been approved, I don't see the problem.

But, the examiner sent me a letter demanding that I EITHER submit a new form (which he had nicely filled out for me with "all legal reasons") OR that I explain my answer.  So I sent back a detailed letter explaining my answer (since the examiner gave me that option) - including pointing out that the Centers for Disease Control (another government agency) has a webpage about preparing for the zombie uprising, and explaining that even though a space alien invasion is highly unlikely, it is not technically impossible.

A month later (today), I got a letter from a different person (presumably the examiner's superior) saying that my reason was "inappropriate" and that I need to resubmit with a "more specific to the current reality of application" reason.

What's really bizarre is that he returned my Form 1 copies, and you can clearly see where a tax stamp has been TORN OFF and where the original examiner's approval signature and date has been covered with white-out.  How bizarre is that??  

So now I intend to argue with them some more, and point out that other silly reasons HAVE been approved, and demand to know exactly what the legal definition of "inappropriate" is for this question - which to my mind can only either be unlawful or lawful.  I have no idea what the grey area of "appropriate" means, so I'd like the ATF to clarify that for me.  

I'm in no hurry.

I've already got an SBR lower on a Form 1 - this is just for a second one, which I don't really have a particular need for.

So I don't really care WHEN, or even IF they ever approve it.  

But on the other hand, I don't think it's appropriate for them to approve different things for different people, or to make up grey and nebulous terms like "inappropriate" when the form seems pretty clear-cut.  Either the answer is unlawful (in which case they should deny the Form 1), or it is NOT unlawful, in which case they should approve it.  I have no idea what this "inappropriate" bullshit is.

Plus, if my answer was "inappropriate" - then the examiner should have told me so a month ago and asked me to change it, instead of giving me the option of "explaining" my answer (which I did, in great detail).

First of all, none of this would have happened if they were consistent, and didn't grant approval to people who write stuff like "zombies" during the past year.  The problem here is NOT that I wrote something silly, the problem is that apparently each examiner gets to interpret the law and decide whether or not to approve a form based on arbitrary and made-up standards. If they didn't want things like this, perhaps THEY should make sure that their form is clear.  A simple "Do you intend to use this firearm for any illegal purpose?" with a yes/no box would remedy it.

Second, there wouldn't have been a second round of this bullshit, if the original examiner had just TOLD me to change it.  But instead, the examiner gave me a choice, and told me to either change it OR explain it - and then after I explained it, the supervisor decided to REVERSE the examiner's decision and make up a completely different standard.  Again, the problem is that different employees at the ATF use completely different standards to decide on approval of something that should be standardized.

Third, trust me, the sloppy and half-assed nature of the crude and quickly scribbled letters I got from the ATF did not significantly slow down anyone's day.  


I understand your point, and I hear where you are coming from - but I COMPLIED with what the first examiner demanded - and then her boss decided to over-rule her.  That is NOT my fault.

Thanks!  

Sorry you are so easily irritated.  



As I already mentioned, nobody has been "tied up" by this to any significant degree.  I admit that the first examiner took the time to quickly fill out a new form with "all legal purposes" and scribble me a note - but I guarantee you it did NOT "tie up" any substantial amount of time.  You act as if this was some huge issue that puzzled an examiner for hours, and caused an already GIGANTIC backlog to get larger.  Get a grip.  The backlog is fucking huge because the ATF cannot be bothered to fund the additional positions that have become necessary due to increased demand, NOT because some examiner decided to waste five minutes because he or she didn't "like" the answer on a meaningless question on a Form 1.

Also, my point is AGAIN, that I didn't cause this.  The same agency that has had examiners approving stuff like "Zombie hunting" and "protection against zombies" and other silly shit could just have approved this.  They decided to make a big deal out of it and waste the time - not me.  When the first examiner wrote back and told me what to do, I did EXACTLY as he/she asked - and then suddenly the second examiner decided to change the rule again.  Both of them decided to waste more time.



Or, alternatively, different examiners are completely inconsistent in how they approve or disapprove Forms (and I wonder what statutory authority they have to do this).  The fact that someone clearly approved my Form and fixed the stamp on it, and then someone ELSE removed it again - seems to support the complete lack of consistency at the ATF on this issue.  For all you know, the examiner sitting next to them approved the "to impress chicks" and "to compensate for my inadequacy" that I know several people have submitted on Form 1s recently.  

If they didn't want people to put silly answers for this meaningless question, then they SHOULD NEVER HAVE DONE SO IN THE FIRST PLACE.  Don't blame me for the fact that they are now wasting time by changing arbitrary rules on the fly.  



I am making a mockery of nothing. I am merely demanding consistency from a federal agency.  I assume that regardless of who handles my tax forms, they will be following the same rules and schedules, regardless of who the employee is.  I never thought that my Form 1 approval or disapproval would depend on which examiner I got.  Doesn't THAT seem like a problem for a federal agency to you?

THEY are making a mockery of their own retarded process by first approving silly shit like "zombie hunting" and goofy stuff like that, and then suddenly turning around and telling people that it's inappropriate, after first telling them that it's okay as long as you provide an explanation.

Again, do you understand WHERE the problem is here?  It's in the arbitrary and inconsistent actions of the examiners on a federal form.  



No, I don't think I will.

Deal with your irritation.

Man, looking at this thread, some of you guys sound like my wife.  



... which probably means that I should consider listening.  

To my knowledge there isn't any federal law or statue that covers this.  Seems to just be made up by the ATF.



Exactly.  The truthful answer for my latest Form 1 would have been "because I am bored and feel like another SBR" - which is just as stupid as space aliens and zombies.

The way I see the whole "Why you intend to make a firearm" is that there should be only two categories of answers.
(A) Some un-lawful reason
(B) Anything else

It seems to me that as long as the answer clearly isn't in the category of (A), then there really isn't a LEGAL reason for the form to not be approved.

If there is a list of the "appropriate" and legal answers that are allowable, and the "inappropriate" answers that are not allowable then I think it's only reasonable that the ATF first of all INFORM PEOPLE what those answers are, and second of all MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE EXAMINERS ARE ON THE SAME DAMN PAGE!


ETA:  If the ATF cared about not wasting time - then they could easily revise the form and just have a "Do you intend to use this firearm for unlawful purposes?" question, with a Yes/No box to check.  But instead, they have a ludicrous open-ended question that is completely unnecessary, and make arbitrary distinctions on what is "appropriate" and "inappropriate" to put in there, when the only question SHOULD be what is legal and not.

Truth be told, I did have a lot of unpleasant experiences with the INS in the 1990s.  You could literally ask three people the same question on the same day and get three different answers.

So you are right, I should have known better.  



I hope not.  I am honestly NOT trying to troll or be a smart-ass, and had no idea that some people would get so bent out of shape about it.  

I didn't cause the problem with ATF under-staffing, I didn't cause the (apparent) problem of goofy reasons being approved, nor did I cause the problem of arbitrary and shifting standards.   All I did was go along with the precedent for humorous answers that the ATF themselves allowed, and when they told me how to remedy it, I followed their instructions - only to have them change their mind and make up a new requirement.  

Do you expect that your income tax forms will be treated the same and subject to the same tax laws - regardless of which particular employee happens to be handling it?



ETA:  And to specifically answer your question, if the IRS started to allow people to make humorous comments - say about dependent, calling their children "hobbits" or "parasites" - then yes, I might do that, just because it adds a little bit of of humor to an otherwise boring and unpleasant bureaucratic task.

Again, I did not invent this "game" - the ATF allowed this game to be played, and now some people seem to think that I am the bad guy because I tried to play the game, and they sudden;y decided to change the rules, and then when I complied with their new and invented rule, they then decided to change the rules again and make up a new one.