Just spoke with a person over at BATFE regarding 2 of my 3 electronic Form 1's didn't have the name of my trust in field 3.  So he told me he will just rescind the two forms and have me resubmit.  Then he told me he had just received information from WA firearm division not to approve any Form 1's due to the language in the SB 5956 saying individuals are not allowed to manufacture SBR.  The BATFE person then said in their definition, if you are allow to possess SBR then you are allowed to manufacture into SBR.  But he said they will have to wait for an official ruling on this so all form 1's are on hold, but still recommend to keep on submitting Form 1's.

Update 1:  On 8/7/2014 one of my Form 1 got approved.

Update 2:  On 8/8/2014 I called Dana Pickles and asked him if he can explain why that Form 1 was approved and yet he said all WA Form 1 are on hold.  He said as far as he knows, all WA SBR Form 1's are still on hold.  Then he said today is his last day at BATFE and perhaps there are new info and they didn't bother to update him since he is leaving.  Dana also said just because BATFE has approved the Form 1 that doesn't mean it is legal for us to "manufacture" SBR since in the eyes of WA that is still illegal.

Oh well.... anyone else got their Form 1's approved either on or after 8/7?

Bummer.  We still plan on working on the language this upcoming session, regardless of which way the chips fall.  

EDIT:  I'll still send SUBIE his .22 ammo.

Well crap though I'm not super surprised.

So who exactly does an official ruling need to come from? Dawgfish do you think Rep Blake can get insight here?

Would be ideal not to have to wait until next legislative season before anyone even looks at this with regards to current definition of manufacturing.

AG.

It will probably take legislative action to correct.

I guess what I'm saying is it would be great to have the AG officially asked to rule on this matter if that hasn't happened already as a result of this. There might always be a chance that we get unblocked if manufacturing is deemed different from making/registering an SBR/etc.

I'd just hate the idea of no official ruling and we remain blocked 'just because its not clear' and no one bothered to get an official opinion one way or the other.

As far as I can tell we have nothing to lose with regards to an AG opinion now in favor or against since we are effectively blocked as is. If he says form 1s are indeed not allowed, well we still have to get it cleared up next legislative cycle anyways so there is no downside that I can see.

So what's this mean for those whose Form 1s have been approved and have built their SBRs?

If the BATFE gives me a stamp with "approved" then I may have already built it.

This sucks..

Just submitted my form 1 on Sunday.

Per Brian, usually you only ask for an official ruling when you know the answer ahead of time.  The issue is that the two attorney opinions I have say Form 1's were a no go based on the wording of the bill.  Apparently ATF has a different process approving Form 1's in states than how individual states apply their own laws.  I've been stating this idea for a while, that this was a possibility.  I sincerely hope Form 1's are a go, but if not, cleanup will take place.  

As far as the few Form 1's approved so far, I don't know.  Gray area.  This is why I have been saying proceed with caution all along.  

Hence my point, we have nothing to lose in asking the AG for an opinion on this now as the law stands, as well as clarifying what this means for people that already got approved form 1s back.

Not doing anything at this point assures we get left blocked until future legislation gets passed.

Going to cross my fingers that 41p gets pushed out even further...

Fml. What a buzz kill.

ARGHHHH!!!! Like being punished for doing the right thing. Some guy is hacking his off with a metal saw right now but we take the time to jump through hoops, pay money and wait 10months. Soooo frustrating.

Rather than following a vague contact, if the OP could send me data as to the agent he spoke with, contact info, etc, I can see who this agent spoke to in Washington State, that would be a start. Blake would then be able to contact the person in this state.  Cutting to the chase would save considerable time.  Hopefully you took down names.  Just send it in a PM.  

Thanks.

Dawgfish, I left the BATFE agent's phone number at work.  I PM you tomorrow with his phone number.  He had a unique name which I didn't write it down because I was in a rush to fix my Form 1 problem.  Unfortunately I just fracked up another Form 1 submission so I will need to call him back tomorrow and I'll have him spell out his name.

Thank you.

There is a HUGE problem with an unfavorable opinion.  As Dogfish pointed out, you never ask the judiciary for a written opinion unless you know what it's going to be ahead of time.
Once it's written, you will be hard pressed to find a future judiciary or any other officer of the court who is willing to tell his co-horts that they were wrong.  
Many precedents (and their future influence), once set, remain the law of the land in clear opposition of plain reading because of the small, intermingled (and incestuous) nature of lawyers...  God love'm.

We'll let Brian work behind the scene on this issue, before he ends up asking for a formal opinion.  One of the attorney opinions I have is from the counsel to the House judiciary committee, so what I had alluded to much earlier was based on fairly credible info.

I realize that everybody wants an answer yesterday, but it doesn't work that way.

Roger that!

Guess we just have to wait until the AG brings charges against the current form 1 holders.

Dawgfish, I've sent you PM with the name (Dana Pickles) and his phone number that I had spoken with.  And I found this list on ATF's website:
NFA Examiner Assignment Distribution (effective July 2011)

Nicole Dudash — IL, IN, OH, PA
Chris Farris — AK, CT, MA, ME, MI, NH, RI, VT
Ann Feltner — AZ, CA, NM, NV
Jason Frushour — CO, MT, ND, SD, UT, WI, WY
Sara Jones — LA, TX
Albert Lamberger — AL, FL, TN
Dana Pickles — DE, KY, MD, NC, NJ, NY, VA, WV
Suzanne Santamaria — GA, SC
William Shipman — AR, HI, IA, KS, MN, MO, MS, NE, OK
Sandra Snook —ID, OR, WA

https://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2011/06/061711-firearms-nfa-supplemental-information-geographic-distribution-of-nfa-applications-for-processing-by-atf.html

So did he approve the third form (one with correct address info) or is he just waiting for go-ahead from his superiors?

Edited for clarification.

So what we have here is a situation in which the ATF has proven their willingness to approve form 1s... But then "something" has come up and changes their mind. Me thinks we screwed ourselves by asking too many stupid questions. If we'd left well enough alone we'd be fine. The "ATF checks state law before they approve forms" seems debunked by approved form 1s. They either don't, or their interpretation of the law says that F1 is OK. Either way, that makes wa the source of the problem here and I very much doubt that any antis in wa initiated that process. None of them even thought of it. It was us.

He did not approve or disapprove the third form for he said all Form 1's from WA are on hold until they receive further clarification from their upper management.

Of course they checked state law, that's why they started processing F1's.  Their initial interpretation was it was GTG.  The DOL, through whatever prodding (and this is how it's worked each time this has happened) took a different interpretation and advised ATF.  

Since neither bureaucracy (DOL or ATF) is required to coordinate with each other ahead of time, they operate on the premise that unless they hear otherwise, they will honor plain interpretations - they don't go running to each other, asking outside agencies their opinions on how to do their work.

And now you have the situation of people with approved Form 1's...   And while no one asked my opinion on this, here it is anyway.  This is a pickle you don't want to find yourself in if it can be avoided.  I choose the wait-and-see approach instead of early-adopter because I've seen this before (eg, Akins Accelerator, Pre-81 DIAS/LL's, etc...)  One jurisdiction tells you things are ok, another says no.  And if you've committed the act, you don't get an un-do no matter how much common sense, government mistakes, documenting paperwork, "but they said" testimony you have...  

Anyone else remember the guy who thought it'd be worth the try and filed a Form 1 to make a MG and caught the ATF Examiner asleep.  Stamped showed up, he got to work and posted his new prize.  A flood of people started filing, hoping there was some sort of loophole ATF wasn't sharing.  ATF took a rather dim view on the whole thing - did the standard "Give us the paperwork back and the contraband and we won't press charges on your criminal act."  

I think it will all be ok just a little speed bump is all. It says you can posses and acquire a SBR. The definition of acquired is : to buy or obtain, to gain for oneself through one's actions or efforts.  So here we go just like before...Plus every other state that allows form 1s let you make one, they should see that.  Also a form 1 is to "make and register."

approved people are in less of a pickle than the rest of us. All they have to do is submit a 5320.20 with ATF to take their gun parts to OR or ID, do so, make their SBR there, and bring it back. Makes state interpretation of "manufacturing" completely irrelevant because the SBR is neither made nor manufactured in WA and is therefore not subject to that particular aspect of WA law. WA can't ban something in other states.

At any rate, we are back to talking about the law on its merits and text, which isn't a bad place to be. I reject the theory that Washington may be using a different definition of "manufacturing". This state law is intimately linked to federal law. The law says the SBR must be acquired in accordance with federal law. You can't have accordance with law without agreeing on terms. Therefore, the state legislature/governor have willingly and purposefully adopted the language/terms adopted by the federal government in this specific area. Some other obscure section of WA law may consider "manufacturing" to be something else, and that is irrelevant. In this bill they tied themselves to federal language, and that is what must be used, otherwise the entire law is moot and changes nothing (SBRs are a federally defined class of weapons after all). The ATF says "making" is done with a Form 1, and "manufacturing" requires a license and is the act of producing SBRs to sell. Applying those definitions to WA law is entirely consistent. "Manufacturing" (businesses building SBRs for sale) is still regulated by subsequent subsections. "Making" is not regulated under this law, and falls under the "except as otherwise" portion of section 1, and the "acquire" portion of section 2.

People keep saying "manufacturing is illegal!"  Maybe, but Form 1 isn't for manufacturing SBRs, so that's a moot point. Spirit of the law is also massively on the side of form 1s being legal. It's asinine to interpret a bill that has one single purpose, legalizing SBRs for civilian use, as in fact being a ban on acquiring SBRs....even though is specifically says you can acquire them. That's just ridiculous.  My guess is, anyone interpreting things in another way probably haven't read anything from ATF regarding make vs manufacture. If you assume they are equivalent, then we could have a problem. They aren't equivalent though....so no worries. We'll get our shit, it's just going to take like 2 years instead of 8 months.

Funny thing just happened.  My only properly Form 1 just got approved.

Welp!! . There you go. End of story.

As the great philosopher Duke Nukem once said, "get that crap outta here!"  

Nice. Another victory for liberty.

Ha!!! that is hilarious

I'm seriously scratching my head at this one...  

Guy gets approved Form 1.  But fearing state prohibitions, doesn't buy the parts yet (for fear of constructive possession), but files a 5320.20 to transfer the approved SBR across state lines.

So, Guy goes to OR with Form 1 & 5320.20, buys the remaining parts and does the "make" there...

The part that has me scratching is two fold...

1)  Can you really apply for the 5320.20 on something you haven't made - yet...  (a bit of chicken-an-egg and academic...)

2)  The Form 1 was approved for the "make" to happen in the state where the taxable event is to occur, else there'd be no reason for 5320.20's (or Form 4's for that matter).


Meh - more power to those who make it work...

Earlier on people made calls to the ATF and heard they wouldn't be accepting form 1s that were sent in before June 12th.  Yet they did exactly what they said they wouldn't.

I have no words.

On one hand I'm worried the one I submitted will be held forever or rejected. On the other I'm happy to hear they are still going through.

This thread is now dildos. I'm tired of the roller coaster!

Maybe I'll just submit the second form I was about to do and say fuck it.

I feel your pain.

Just got my dissaproval email for my form 1, this explains it. They just sent an email saying to call a number and it was dissaproved. Blast!

What did they tell you when you called?

You probably got disapproved for an actual reason other than this WA law debate...

Bleh, logged on eforms and now my submitted form 1 doesn't even show up under My Forms.  Didn't get any emails or calls about being disapproved.  Sucky.

 

Ditto.

Thinking of changing my avatar to I was promised SBRs :SADFACE:

that's an unrelated issue with the efile site. everyone is reporting all their existing forms, both draft, submitted, and approved, have disappeared.

hopefully someone didn't accidentally wipe the entire db hahahha

Well that is a relief.  I think.



 

Eforms is so shotty! I wouldn't worry its probably just another issue with the site. I tried submitting 3 days in a row until it finally went through and didn't crash oh and the lovely "down for routine maintenance" message.

Yet I have no issue ordering parts for an SBR upper in Midwayusa.comon any given day, at any time.

Mine is missing also.

It's a good thing I printed multiple copies.

Yes, it's an exception in ATF policy that was presumeably intended to allow people who live near borders and need assistance from a person across state lines in order to make their SBR. It's in the handbook. I presume the chicken/egg issue is resolved because though the SBR is not yet made when taken across the border it HAS been registered with ATF. This is all just a theory of course, no state in the nation has legal SBRs and bans form 1s at the same time... So whether or not the ATF would tolerate this approach is untested. Still, if I had an approved tax stamp right now, it's probably what I'd do. The physical act of building your SBR can be done in other states per the ATF. If its questionable as to whether carrying that out in WA is legal or not under state law, might as well cover all the based and drive across the river.

 

That's interesting!  Good to know. I'll have to read up on that.

The engraving is supposed to indicate where the sbr was actually made from what I've read.  So if you make it in Portland OR it should be engraved 'Joe Smith trust Portland, OR'. Even if you live in Tacoma WA...

Yep -- and my previously approved form 1 is back and still approved.