User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/13/2015 1:50:08 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It could be a while. Nobody knows. So everybody needs to buck up and be patient. As soon as I have an update, you will know. 41P is the problem. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2015 2:05:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well that's fantastic, being out a few hundred bucks for 6 months. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Has anyone who received a denied Form 1 on May 27th, received their refund yet? I have a feeling its been too long to credit it back to my card, so it will most-likely come via a paper check. It will take 90 days to receive the refund. They will not mail a check, only credit the original credit card account. I've been through this previously. Well that's fantastic, being out a few hundred bucks for 6 months.
Think of yourself as being an outstanding subject having the privilege to give his high government an interest free loan with an open payback timeline. You should be proud of yourself. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2015 2:15:52 PM EDT
[#3]
I'm thinking I should start a new thread but it's partially connected to this issue, so why clutter things up.
I have a suppressor (Spectre II) that was supposedly put into problem status last week instead of being approved. I just got off the phone maybe 2 minutes ago with the ATF and they informed me that EVERYTHING in Washington is on hold, including suppressors and that was the reason it was in problem status. With that said, has anyone heard this? The woman I spoke with was very nice and she was on our side, said she doesn't expect it to last too long because there is such an uproar, but I haven't heard of form 4s being delayed at all from this until just now. I'm at a loss... This really stinks. Have any of you received any approvals for a form 4 in the past week or so? Or has anyone heard anything about this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2015 2:38:13 PM EDT
[#4]
There are no WA approvals on NFA tracker for quite a while now. Don't know if this is related. Without any newly reported denials, the ATF may be holding on to WA forms. I'm waiting on a form 1 myself so I'd rather wait a bit longer than be denied.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2015 9:39:21 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are no WA approvals on NFA tracker for quite a while now. Don't know if this is related. Without any newly reported denials, the ATF may be holding on to WA forms. I'm waiting on a form 1 myself so I'd rather wait a bit longer than be denied. absolutely +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2015 11:17:02 PM EDT
[#6]
I've got a Form 4 sitting here for a customer with an approval date of 6/2/15......
I have a Form 1 pending from 4/11/15 that is still in "submitted/pending" status.... According to the E-Forms website, I've got a few Form 3's that were approved on 6/9 (submitted 3/24, created 4/8). So it seems there is some action going on at NFA Branch for WA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2015 11:22:14 PM EDT
[#7]
Interesting. I've got an e-mail in with Ted Clutter. I know he won't reply given the amount of traffic he's probably seeing from other WA staters, but... figured I'd try. Ms. Snyder (I believe her name was) That I spoke to today told me to call any time I want to speak with her, I'll let it go a few more days and maybe follow up again.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2015 1:59:50 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm thinking I should start a new thread but it's partially connected to this issue, so why clutter things up. I have a suppressor (Spectre II) that was supposedly put into problem status last week instead of being approved. I just got off the phone maybe 2 minutes ago with the ATF and they informed me that EVERYTHING in Washington is on hold, including suppressors and that was the reason it was in problem status. With that said, has anyone heard this? The woman I spoke with was very nice and she was on our side, said she doesn't expect it to last too long because there is such an uproar, but I haven't heard of form 4s being delayed at all from this until just now. I'm at a loss... This really stinks. Have any of you received any approvals for a form 4 in the past week or so? Or has anyone heard anything about this? Why would suppressor/silencer Form 4's be put on hold? I thought the issue is about "making", not "transferring". This is how it works? 1 issue throws everything into the ditch? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2015 9:22:21 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why are suppressor silencer Form 4's be on hold? I thought the issue is about "making", not "transfering". This is how it works? 1 issue throws everything into the ditch? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm thinking I should start a new thread but it's partially connected to this issue, so why clutter things up. I have a suppressor (Spectre II) that was supposedly put into problem status last week instead of being approved. I just got off the phone maybe 2 minutes ago with the ATF and they informed me that EVERYTHING in Washington is on hold, including suppressors and that was the reason it was in problem status. With that said, has anyone heard this? The woman I spoke with was very nice and she was on our side, said she doesn't expect it to last too long because there is such an uproar, but I haven't heard of form 4s being delayed at all from this until just now. I'm at a loss... This really stinks. Have any of you received any approvals for a form 4 in the past week or so? Or has anyone heard anything about this? Why are suppressor silencer Form 4's be on hold? I thought the issue is about "making", not "transfering". This is how it works? 1 issue throws everything into the ditch? I just got a form 4 back that was approved june 9 for a silencer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2015 3:02:11 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why would suppressor silencer Form 4's be put on hold? I thought the issue is about "making", not "transferring". This is how it works? 1 issue throws everything into the ditch? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm thinking I should start a new thread but it's partially connected to this issue, so why clutter things up. I have a suppressor (Spectre II) that was supposedly put into problem status last week instead of being approved. I just got off the phone maybe 2 minutes ago with the ATF and they informed me that EVERYTHING in Washington is on hold, including suppressors and that was the reason it was in problem status. With that said, has anyone heard this? The woman I spoke with was very nice and she was on our side, said she doesn't expect it to last too long because there is such an uproar, but I haven't heard of form 4s being delayed at all from this until just now. I'm at a loss... This really stinks. Have any of you received any approvals for a form 4 in the past week or so? Or has anyone heard anything about this? Why would suppressor silencer Form 4's be put on hold? I thought the issue is about "making", not "transferring". This is how it works? 1 issue throws everything into the ditch? That is the EXACT same response I had. However when I mentioned that to the woman on the phone, she said, that was the only thing that could be keeping it up. I again clarified that it's not a short barreled rifle, and is totally legal, nothing had changed in regards to Silencer ownership. Heck, I know. I own 4 other ones. still the same reply. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2015 3:02:39 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I just got a form 4 back that was approved june 9 for a silencer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm thinking I should start a new thread but it's partially connected to this issue, so why clutter things up. I have a suppressor (Spectre II) that was supposedly put into problem status last week instead of being approved. I just got off the phone maybe 2 minutes ago with the ATF and they informed me that EVERYTHING in Washington is on hold, including suppressors and that was the reason it was in problem status. With that said, has anyone heard this? The woman I spoke with was very nice and she was on our side, said she doesn't expect it to last too long because there is such an uproar, but I haven't heard of form 4s being delayed at all from this until just now. I'm at a loss... This really stinks. Have any of you received any approvals for a form 4 in the past week or so? Or has anyone heard anything about this? Why are suppressor silencer Form 4's be on hold? I thought the issue is about "making", not "transfering". This is how it works? 1 issue throws everything into the ditch? I just got a form 4 back that was approved june 9 for a silencer. Interesting. She told me the date it happened was the 12th. I'm tempted to call again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/16/2015 4:09:50 PM EDT
[#12]
Annnnd just called again, as others are receiving forms from earlier last week.
Ms. Snyder yet again confirmed that REGARDLESS of the type of form, ALL forms from Washington state are now on hold. As of the end of the week. So while things may have gotten through on Monday/Tuesday, as of the 12th, everything is on hold. If anyone experiences something different, please let me know! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 2:11:52 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Annnnd just called again, as others are receiving forms from earlier last week. Ms. Snyder yet again confirmed that REGARDLESS of the type of form, ALL forms from Washington state are now on hold. As of the end of the week. So while things may have gotten through on Monday/Tuesday, as of the 12th, everything is on hold. If anyone experiences something different, please let me know! They certainly didn't wait to take advantage of the situation. 
How many years until this is resolved? Probably won't matter after this coming December. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 4:45:49 PM EDT
[#14]
Why the F would they put form 4 suppressors on hold?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 5:46:06 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why the F would they put form 4 suppressors on hold? Do you even .GOV bro? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 6:33:50 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why the F would they put form 4 suppressors on hold? We ARE the Bureaucracy! The .gov looking out for the little guy! (but yeah naturally makes no sense) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 7:29:11 PM EDT
[#17]
All these assholes both state and federal are going to put us in a state of perpetual limbo now. What is legal, will have no consequence while they will play their game of red tape. BS. I'm sick of it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 8:27:28 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
All these assholes both state and federal are going to put us in a state of perpetual limbo now. What is legal, will have no consequence while they will play their game of red tape. BS. I'm sick of it. Have you red the text that was amended? A 1st yr law student would pick it apart. It is poorly written. In fact, subsection (2) could have simply declared SBR's to be legal & referenced federal NFA law. From dawg's prior posts, I'm getting the impression that - rather than stating explicitly - assumptions were made about what meaning "possession" could/would/should encapsulate. The language should have been vetted, & the parameters spelled out explicitly, concisely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 8:30:41 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Have you red the text that was amended? A 1st yr law student would pick it apart. It is poorly written. In fact, subsection (2) could have simply declared SBR's to be legal & referenced federal NFA law. From dawg's prior posts, I'm getting the impression that - rather than stating explicitly - assumptions were made about what meaning "possession" could/would/should encapsulate. The language should have been vetted, & the parameters spelled out explicitly, concisely. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
All these assholes both state and federal are going to put us in a state of perpetual limbo now. What is legal, will have no consequence while they will play their game of red tape. BS. I'm sick of it. Have you red the text that was amended? A 1st yr law student would pick it apart. It is poorly written. In fact, subsection (2) could have simply declared SBR's to be legal & referenced federal NFA law. From dawg's prior posts, I'm getting the impression that - rather than stating explicitly - assumptions were made about what meaning "possession" could/would/should encapsulate. The language should have been vetted, & the parameters spelled out explicitly, concisely. I understand that and I agree. However, as with most of us here, my frustration stems from the fact we shouldn't have to be going to through this BS to begin with. Edit to add: My frustration is compounded by the fact that they have suspended basically any NFA form for WA state. So even though suppressors are good to go our state officials and the feds are going to sit on their thumbs until everything can be "ironed out". Regardless of whether it's legal or not. Never mind me....my panties are in a bunch and I'm just burned out on all this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 8:40:49 PM EDT
[#20]
Form 1s and 4s for SBRs maybe, but not suppressors. I just got an approved F4 for a can last week. So me thinks "all NFA are on hold!" is not a true statement...
Don't get me wrong, it's TOTAL bs if they are holding up SBR F1/F4, I'm just saying...cans are getting through. If they aren't, it's a total load of shit. I was just about to submit a couple of form 1s to make a couple cans... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 9:26:40 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Form 1s and 4s for SBRs maybe, but not suppressors. I just got an approved F4 for a can last week. So me thinks "all NFA are on hold!" is not a true statement... Don't get me wrong, it's TOTAL bs if they are holding up SBR F1/F4, I'm just saying...cans are getting through. If they aren't, it's a total load of shit. I was just about to submit a couple of form 1s to make a couple cans... Well that is some light at the end of the tunnel. I was just getting ready to purchase another can and the news that all "NFA forms are on hold" was a major downer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 9:27:59 PM EDT
[#22]
Wow, I've been out of the country for a few weeks and just found this thread.
This sucks... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/17/2015 10:20:23 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Form 1s and 4s for SBRs maybe, but not suppressors. I just got an approved F4 for a can last week. So me thinks "all NFA are on hold!" is not a true statement... Don't get me wrong, it's TOTAL bs if they are holding up SBR F1/F4, I'm just saying...cans are getting through. If they aren't, it's a total load of shit. I was just about to submit a couple of form 1s to make a couple cans... As I had mentioned in my previous posts, according to the ATF as of the 12th all WA forms are on hold including suppressors. What was your approval date? I'm hoping she's incorrect but so far it's the only answer they are giving me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2015 2:12:30 AM EDT
[#24]
Under what justification? IIRC suppressors and SBRs aren't even covered in the same subsections of WA law. What else did they arbitrarily ban due to questions about a specific means of acquiring a specific type of nfa item?! I wonder if that national suppressor manufacturers group, which seems to rub elbows with the atf nfa peeps all the time, could poke around a bit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2015 2:29:42 AM EDT
[#25]
I know someone in WA state that got a stamp (Form 1 suppressor) approved and delivered (eFile) on Monday June 15th. So what she is telling you doesn't really jive...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2015 6:51:06 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I understand that and I agree. However, as with most of us here, my frustration stems from the fact we shouldn't have to be going to through this BS to begin with. Edit to add: My frustration is compounded by the fact that they have suspended basically any NFA form for WA state. So even though suppressors are good to go our state officials and the feds are going to sit on their thumbs until everything can be "ironed out". Regardless of whether it's legal or not. Never mind me....my panties are in a bunch and I'm just burned out on all this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
All these assholes both state and federal are going to put us in a state of perpetual limbo now. What is legal, will have no consequence while they will play their game of red tape. BS. I'm sick of it. Have you red the text that was amended? A 1st yr law student would pick it apart. It is poorly written. In fact, subsection (2) could have simply declared SBR's to be legal & referenced federal NFA law. From dawg's prior posts, I'm getting the impression that - rather than stating explicitly - assumptions were made about what meaning "possession" could/would/should encapsulate. The language should have been vetted, & the parameters spelled out explicitly, concisely. I understand that and I agree. However, as with most of us here, my frustration stems from the fact we shouldn't have to be going to through this BS to begin with. Edit to add: My frustration is compounded by the fact that they have suspended basically any NFA form for WA state. So even though suppressors are good to go our state officials and the feds are going to sit on their thumbs until everything can be "ironed out". Regardless of whether it's legal or not. Never mind me....my panties are in a bunch and I'm just burned out on all this. Singing to the choir, man. We all feel the same pain. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2015 7:39:19 AM EDT
[#27]
I know......
Just had to vent I guess..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2015 3:47:39 PM EDT
[#28]
Once a form 1 tax stamp is issued could we drive out to our local Indian reservation, slap a butt stock and short barrel on our firearm and then take it home? The SBR was "made" outside WA state jurisdiction and a legal SBR is possessed when you depart the reservation.
Does this make any kind of sense? Would a 5320.20 be required? You wouldn't be taking the SBR out of a state, you would be bringing it into a state. Same would apply to military bases right? Build it at the range at JBLM, test fire and drive home. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2015 5:28:30 PM EDT
[#29]
Doesn't matter, if they never approve the stamp in the first place you don't have an opportunity to drive anywhere to assemble.
Even so I'm highly skeptical about that whole process. It has NEVER been proven by anyone that it is anymore successful or lawful then just assembling the SBR in your WA home. This idea is strictly an unproven theory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2015 8:08:19 PM EDT
[#30]
Unless you can point out the city, county, state, or federal law that is broken in a drive-to-make scenario, it's about as proven a theory as gravity. A case against such a person, from the gov's perspective, is much less tenable than any 922r compliance case. MUCH. And how often do they do those again? That said, I agree with your statement, taken literally, since IMO making SBRs in your home is 100% legal as well...
As far as cans go, we ALL know what's going on here. The ATF doesn't care what the law says, any excuse they can come up with to slow down NFA item acquisition, they'll do it. Never mind that an equal protection lawsuit, if anyone actually launched one, would likely win...they KNOW that all they have to do is drag their heels long enough for 41p to go into affect. No new law suit against ATF is going to be settled between now and December...so why NOT screw the people of WA over? What's the downside for them? Once 41p is in, then phase 2 starts: the big push to get as many CLEOs as possible to not sign forms. It'll start in the liberal meccas and radiate outwards until only people living in rural Wyoming, Alaska, Florida, and Montana have any "NFA Rights" left anymore. Prepare yourself for the antis to create some new term, like "Sheriff Loophole" or some such idiocy. Just a matter of time and Bloomberg's $$$. Either that or they will just start supporting suits against Sheriffs that sign and then something bad happens later. Look at how the Feds are treating Sheriff Joe in AZ right now. We're gonna get that times a million. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2015 1:16:09 PM EDT
[#31]
Spoke with Brian last night for about 45 minutes. He is speaking with Bob Ferguson today about this issue, and a number of other issues. Ferguson fought attempts by anti-gun folks to paint him in a corner on the 2nd amendment, and in previous discussions between he and Brian, Ferguson said he will always support the 2nd. Brian doesn't see Ferguson as a threat on this issue, and expects him to give it a fair shake.
When anything changes, I will let you know. Until then, please stop fantasizing about every possible negative outcome. Also, stop barraging the ATF with questions, please. You make it nearly impossible for people who need to talk to the ATF to get through. As far as Brian's plan with Ferguson, he'll ask Ferguson what the AG's office opinion might be on the legality of Form 1 SBR's, given a difference in the definition of Make vs. Manufacture. From there, depending on Ferguson's answers, Brian will likely ask for an informal opinion, which gives guidance, but is not binding. "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to," is the guideline Brian is using. If the informal opinion is such that Form 1 SBR's are fine, Brian will ask for a formal opinion, which is binding. Brian will also likely ask Ferguson to support an amendment to the current law as written for the 2016 session if things don't necessarily go the way we would like them to go. Brian Judy of the NRA has contacted his folks higher up the food chain to see what their contacts within the AFT are saying, but at this point in time the ATF is being silent on this issue. That is where we are at this moment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2015 2:25:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Spoke with Brian last night for about 45 minutes. He is speaking with Bob Ferguson today about this issue, and a number of other issues. Ferguson fought attempts by anti-gun folks to paint him in a corner on the 2nd amendment, and in previous discussions between he and Brian, Ferguson said he will always support the 2nd. Brian doesn't see Ferguson as a threat on this issue, and expects him to give it a fair shake. When anything changes, I will let you know. Until then, please stop fantasizing about every possible negative outcome. Also, stop barraging the ATF with questions, please. You make it nearly impossible for people who need to talk to the ATF to get through. As far as Brian's plan with Ferguson, he'll ask Ferguson what the AG's office opinion might be on the legality of Form 1 SBR's, given a difference in the definition of Make vs. Manufacture. From there, depending on Ferguson's answers, Brian will likely ask for an informal opinion, which gives guidance, but is not binding. "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to," is the guideline Brian is using. If the informal opinion is such that Form 1 SBR's are fine, Brian will ask for a formal opinion, which is binding. Brian will also likely ask Ferguson to support an amendment to the current law as written for the 2016 session if things don't necessarily go the way we would like them to go. Brian Judy of the NRA has contacted his folks higher up the food chain to see what their contacts within the AFT are saying, but at this point in time the ATF is being silent on this issue. That is where we are at this moment. Thanks for the update. The stop order for form 4 apps is particularly annoying - perhaps that's the intent - because it is not germane. Very disappointing. I have 2 cans, 1 waiting in a safe & the other on the way s/p form 3, that I was hoping to get moving on. So now it may possibly come down to 41p v. whether the reported amendment to block it comes through. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2015 3:02:15 PM EDT
[#33]
I agree that it is frustrating.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2015 6:10:47 PM EDT
[#34]
Thank you for all your hard work trying to fix this issue and for keeping us up to date on any news.
I currently have 3 forms in process. 2 since March and 1 in June before I heard about this problem. As you can imagine, being stuck in the middle of all this with items that have already been paid for is gut wrenching. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2015 12:19:23 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Brian will also likely ask Ferguson to support an amendment to the current law as written for the 2016 session if things don't necessarily go the way we would like them to go. if it comes to that, I wonder if we can tack on verbiage to allow SBS too....... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2015 12:38:18 AM EDT
[#36]
exactly, strike SBR and SBS from the language completely, label it a ban on machine guns in Washington and rake in the liberal votes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2015 8:35:26 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
exactly, strike SBR and SBS from the language completely, label it a ban on machine guns in Washington and rake in the liberal votes. This. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2015 9:32:59 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
exactly, strike SBR and SBS from the language completely, label it a ban on machine guns in Washington and rake in the liberal votes. This. Why? They shouldnt be banned and they already are so I dont see how you can sell it as a ban on mg's. How about a couple changes like I've made below. RCW 9.41.190 Unlawful firearms—Exceptions. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively for use in a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle, or in converting a weapon into a machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle; or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle. (2) Subsection (1) of this section shall not apply to: (a) Any peace officer in the discharge of official duty or traveling to or from official duty, or to any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States or the state of Washington in the discharge of official duty or traveling to or from official duty; or (b) A person, including an employee of such person if the employee has undergone fingerprinting and a background check, who or which is exempt from or licensed under federal law, and engaged in the production, manufacture, repair, or testing of machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles: (i) To be used or purchased by the armed forces of the United States; (ii) To be used or purchased by federal, state, county, or municipal law enforcement agencies; or (iii) For SALE in compliance with all applicable federal laws and regulations. (4) It shall be an affirmative defense to a prosecution brought under this section that the machine gun or short-barreled shotgun was acquired prior to July 1, 1994, and is possessed in compliance with federal law. (5)Firearms possessed, acquired, transferred or manufactured in accordance with federal law. (6) Any person violating this section is guilty of a class C felony. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2015 1:45:51 AM EDT
[#39]
One thing at a time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2015 10:15:54 AM EDT
[#40]
I was going to purchase a suppressor today. This is a very unfortunate situation.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2015 12:03:19 PM EDT
[#41]
Why wouldn't you purchase it anyways? If they are truly on hold, you will just have to wait even longer. Might as well get your spot in line....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2015 12:27:18 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why wouldn't you purchase it anyways? If they are truly on hold, you will just have to wait even longer. Might as well get your spot in line.... I have the impression they're rejecting applications some time after they're submitted and buying anything now is just wasted time and money. Is this wrong? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2015 1:50:42 PM EDT
[#43]
Use a 2% back credit card, efile, and then if you get rejected it's basically like getting 2% on your savings. Not bad these days.
 . Of course you'd have to form 1 to efile, but everyone is making cans these days!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2015 2:42:05 PM EDT
[#44]
We have conflicting reports of the ATF denying everything in WA (cust service rep on the phone) and Form 4's coming back after the big May 27th mass denial. There isn't any concrete evidence that says the ATF has put EVERYTHING coming out of WA state on hold. Only hearsay.
I will continue to submit Form 4's. SBR Form 1's will be a while before they are GTG again. Meanwhile, every SBR stocking dealer in WA is continuing to sell FORM 4 SBR's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/21/2015 5:42:07 PM EDT
[#45]
It wasn't one of the CSR's that answer the phones that informed me of the hold, but I do understand that even then it's still hearsay.
Regardless, I would still continue to submit them. Better to be somewhere in that line than holding off completely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2015 4:54:03 AM EDT
[#46]
The NFA branch I'm sure will start approving Form 4s (and Form 1s for suppressors) as soon as they can, and probably want WA to get our shit figured out for SBRs Form 1 too.
Why you might ask would the NFA Branch want us to be able to acquire or manufacturer NFA items? Money and job security. NFA brings in a huge amount of money. Think about how much just the WA forum has already paid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2015 10:41:06 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The NFA branch I'm sure will start approving Form 4s (and Form 1s for suppressors) as soon as they can, and probably want WA to get our shit figured out for SBRs Form 1 too. Why you might ask would the NFA Branch want us to be able to acquire or manufacturer NFA items? Money and job security. NFA brings in a huge amount of money. Think about how much just the WA forum has already paid. It doesnt go to the nfa branch, they probably dont care about any of our money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2015 10:47:48 AM EDT
[#48]
Drop in the bucket for people who are used to dealing with trillions of dollars.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2015 2:39:02 PM EDT
[#49]
Who is the DOL employee that we have in question?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/22/2015 3:12:19 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote History[b]Quoted:[/b,
If anyone wants to call and try to get the status on my can, I'd be happy to supply info so that you can see if they give you the same line. Don't call them anymore. Chill out and be patient. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
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.
