Was this a DOL FOIA? (Edit: re-read your post) I wonder if there isn't more on the ATF's side (presumably in a different email string) about not approving WA Form 1s. The DOL rep was clear that they do not have a position on it or interpret laws, so why would their response be the ATF's reason to disapprove Form 1s?

Thanks for working on this, Nolo.

Mike Beckstrand was my IOI for my interview in August 2014, not surprised to see his name on that. At the time though he said he thought they would eventually be revoked, obviously that hasnt happened and probably wont. I bet Nolo is the reason they are hesitant to revoke anything.

Sorry amigo, I was on my phone and at the time so I only read the text on arfcom, I didn't follow the link. I suppose that was apparent by my post though.

I think I've figured out why DOL isn't supposed to interpret any laws. They are telling people both: a) manufacturing is illegal and b) we don't know what manufacturing is.    They are also telling people they won't interpret any WA law......while they are interpreting WA law.

Unless there is another thread that the gov isn't giving up, I'm not 100% sure why the ATFs reaction was to stop approving Form 1s. It's pretty clear that the person at DoL isn't allowed to present a valid legal opinion....so how could ANY information from them (beyond forwarding something from the AG etc.) be the basis for changing ANY ATF policy on approving/denying forms? This email thread is from September of 2014...and they kept right on approving forms until May of 2015. I suppose it's possible that the ATF and their lawyers were chewing on this that whole time....but it also seems possible that they got more information at some point as well.  

Well, if nothing else it is always nice to see the ATF clarify what "manufacturing" is in their eyes. If you dig through enough ATF documents, I've found that about 90% of the time it means making 'as a business'...but there are oddball occurrences where they use make and manufacture interchangeably. Highly annoying when they use words in different ways, eh?

No matter what ATF and DOL say, IMO making is legal in WA under both the spirit of the law and in it's plain reading.



A form 1 made SBR is very much legally registered and acquired in accordance with federal law. The process of making is in black and white and there's a form for it. Now treacherous forces are trying to tell us that our SBR legalization bill didn't really legalize SBRs. It's a pack of lies from a pack of liars I say! These are the same people that said that NY's anti gun bill really did exclude LEOs....even though not one character of text in the bill did so. The same people that said that the federal obamacare exchange could include subsidies even though there wasn't one bit of text in that bill to back their claims. Our SBR bill DOES have such a basis for legal making. Registration and making IS a means of acquiring, as noted in the legislative notes:

linky

I was wondering about the inconsistency of this turnabout in light if the legislative notes associated with the amendment.  As for the SC taking license, that's nothing new.  They've been doing that for generations.  Seems to me, what the 3 entities involved have in common is an agenda.

I hope Nolo's inquiries will produce a resolution.

What happened between September and May that triggered the denials?

My mailed-in Form1 submitted May 27th just got bounced back. Knew it was going to happen, but seeing the letter from the ATF still sucked.

Thank you for doing this. I check this thread several times a day for any update. If you need funding to continue this, I can't give much but I would gladly contribute.

Thanks for the update. Again, let us know how we can help.

Wish people would quit inviting the govt into their lives though... :(

I e-filed my form 1 on June 6th and was declined on July 11.  No email notice was sent so I checked back at the ATF site.  Declined due to the RCW doesn't allow the manufacture of SBR.

Anyone know how to get our money back? I have tried calling atf and that went no where. Is there a poc we can call? Mine is approaching 2 months

Normally, when the form is denied, the examiner will start the process for your refund. Last time I checked, refunds were about 60-90 days.

Last time I had a form denied, the examiner forgot to issue my refund. I called after about 70 days and they issued a refund withing 48 hours. Not to say that you should all call, but at least give them more than enough time to process.

Call who? I tried at the Seattle atf office and the phone person was less than helpful. Is there a direct number or person?

Please. Seattle ATF Office. Ouch.

You call the regular ATF/NFA number. Why would you call the ATF office in Seattle? They can't do anything about it as they don't process NFA forms.

ATF Service Centers -> Call the NFA Branch

I talked to the NFA branch last week on this when my May 27 denials(x2 F1's) hit the 2 month mark.  The very nice lady on the other end mentioned this could take up to 3 months to process.
I'll be calling back Sept 1st if the money still isn't back then (figure Aug 28 + a few days for Visa to process).

I'm sure there will be a happy-dance/thread here as soon as the $$ starts hitting people's accounts from the May 27th culling that started this fun/excitement.

I called BS on their long time to refund my money and called the credit card company to have them dispute the charge since my application was denied.  They should not charge you until they approve your application if you efile.

And how did that work out?

Just fine.  The CC company put it in dispute and I was told to deduct $200 from my payment.

They said they should give you a refund within 7-10 days since it was over a month they didn't have any problem with it.

I'll probably have some Jack Booted Thugs kick my door in at zero dark thirty, but I'll be ready.

You know, I can't argue with this logic. If the E-File system was more efficient, I don't think charging up front would be such a bad idea. But with how inefficient it is, good on you.

Now this is heard through the grapevine and I am not saying it is a concrete fact but I did hear that the same company that did the E-File system also did the healthcare exchange.

What happened was the same thing that happened with the 'Sig-Brace"
A bunch of busy-bodies that were not satisfied with the wording, even though the present result was "it's legal", kept writing and calling the ATF until  the ATF looked so hard that they found fault!!  
Nice job guys...., you rocked the boat until it sank...., again!!!

Oh well....., I got four approved before the "Busy-bodies" threw there turd into the punch bowl!

According to FOIA emails, it was people asking WA DOL about it. DOL asked ATF and that sunk our battleship :(

My Form1 for a suppressor was disapproved after the images of the notarized pages didn't upload correctly, dissaproved Feb. 20th due to being incomplete,  I received my refund on July 16th.

Got denied May 27. Refund received Aug 6.

Cool. Mine should be close then.

Any update on the AG opinion?

That would really make my day..

He's busy forcing his beliefs on little old ladies with flower shops.

have you or anyone else heard of a WA person getting an approved F1 for a silencer since this bullshit went down?

Yup.  A few F1 cans have been approved.

My RA F2/F4 item has cleared the F2. Submitting F4 tomorrow. Will keep this thread informed.

Not trying to sound Debbie Downer, just asking for clarification for my own understanding- the Form 2 isn't anything that gets "approved" by BATFE, correct? SOT just says "This is what I made" so there really isn't much of a checkpoint with the Form 2?

I am contemplating having an out-of-state SOT make me a SBR and transfer it in F3/F4.

This is also how I understand it. The real test will be when a F4 gets approved using this route (post the May policy reversal by the ATF) that clearly allows the transfer of a SBR manufactured in WA to a non-LEO/MIL. I'm crossing my fingers that this avenue works for folks pursuing it.

The absolutely sure way that will work is the out of state F2/F3/F4 process. That's what I'm doing now as well given I only have 1 more SBR I'm really keen on getting done and don't want to screw around anymore hoping it will get approved.

Mind sharing your method? I am currently stuck on how to do this, as I don't know how to get my 10.5" upper and lower to the SOT? Cant ship SBRs, cant legally make my own.... Sort of sucks.

Can't you simply ship the upper and lower separately?  I have a Sig 553 I want to SBR, and if I were to do it I'd ship the pistol, order the stock and have it shipped directly to the SOT.

I was about to go the RA F2/F4 route, but may just do the out of state F2/F3/F4 just to be sure and not waste another potential 4 months.  Especially since F3s seem to be getting approved in very short order.  I really would prefer using Rainier though.

Whichever company I go with, I hope they wait until after the F4 is approved before engraving their info.  Out of state maybe not as big a deal since there's no reason the F4 shouldn't be approved, given everything else is in order.

When does Rainier do their engraving? If it's after F4 approval, in the current environment, that would make sense, but I don't know if it works that way.

Gun I want to ship is already a rifle, and I already have the 10.4" upper for it. Cant ship an SBR, unless I go through a local SOT, and would have to I guess bring in the AR piston AND the AR rifle, and have the local SOT put 10.4" in the box, along with rifle lower? This is why I might save this project for the return of Form 1s.

I don't see why they couldn't do it after F4 approval, although now that I think about it maybe they do when they send in the F2?  But yeah, I'm not positive.  I'll ask them when I stop in later this week.  IF they have to engrave before F4 approval, I'm not willing to take that risk and will go the out of state route.  Last thing I want is to end up with 2 mfg engravings should the form 4 be rejected the first go around, or go through the trouble of having one filled and refinished.

I'm in a similar conundrum with one of my rifles.  I had my MR556 upper chopped down to 10.4" AND had my trust info engraved on the barrel.  If I had sent the form 1 in one week earlier I would have avoided this mess...argh.  Even though I do have one approved AR lower, it's just not the same without the HK lower.

I ended up grabbing another MR556 barrel and will have that cut to 14.5" with a pinned hider.  I'm going to use that to hold me over until the form 1s return as I have too much money tied up in that 10.4" upper now, and I don't want to engrave it yet again with another mfg.

Exact same situation I am in. My trust is on barrel too. Bought a spare upper and correct gasblock and folding sights. Too much $$$ tied up now for "extra engraving"

Engraving has to be done when they manufacture it, cant wait for approval and then do it. We should know pretty soon if the WA made sbr's will be approved, I sent out two form 4's about 3 months ago and I'm sure others have some forms in waiting too.

rgr, thanks for the info dawg. I shot a suppressed gun for the first time recently, and I think it's time to build some cans...  

This is correct. Worst case scenario the firearm gets denied, returned and then I go the out of state SOT route. We'll see if this goes as planned first.

Yup.  Just got a form 2 approved and started the form 4 today.  Rainier already engraved my lower.  The engraving looks really good  too.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_179/269308_What_is_the_status_of_WA_SBR_form_4_apps_filed_post_5_28_.html]http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_179/269308_What_is_the_status_of_WA_SBR_form_4_apps_filed_post_5_28_.html

Hmm... Hope it works. Need to get our laws revised ASAP. Such bullshit.

I just got a form 1 for a silencer approved that I submitted at the end of April.

Woohoo!! I submitted mine on 4/28.

In the big picture of a this, engraving is dirt cheap.



I read on the class iii form some think early engraving a best practice. Insuring the engraving had no mistakes before stamping up, versus engraving goes bad, and you have to have it redone with a mess on a stamped part.