User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/26/2015 4:04:34 PM EDT
[#1]
Deleted
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 2:46:03 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC manufacturing for regular joes (as opposed to cops, mil etc.) is illegal now... And this would fix that. It would be a positive change, but there's only so many times we can get an SBR fix through. If we only get one change, allowing people to make is MUCH more important. I have read this convoluted legalize several times now, and it appears to do nothing to resolve the issue of individual form 1. It appears to only provide additional legal cover for licensed manufacturers. Whoever wrote this, why are you doing this? Was it difficult to simply amend the original SBR text to include "manufacture", so that it would apply to both individuals and manufacturers? THAT IS ALL YOU HAD TO DO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 3:24:25 AM EDT
[#3]
Agreed... any idea what's going on dawg?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2015 2:28:27 PM EDT
[#4]
From what I've been told recently, a new draft of 1722 or some other bill is being worked on.
Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 12:15:45 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
IIRC manufacturing for regular joes (as opposed to cops, mil etc.) is illegal now... And this would fix that. It would be a positive change, but there's only so many times we can get an SBR fix through. If we only get one change, allowing people to make is MUCH more important. This is what every one wants. But in first reading, the updated law only covers manufacturers, not makers. Form 1s would still be screwed while manufacturers well get legal approval for form 2s . Take the time to do this right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 11:57:46 AM EDT
[#6]
Pretty ridiculous the ATF wasn't satisfied with our first attempt at legalizing SBRs. Making us pass a fuckin law twice? I wish I could look forward to the day this fight is over, but the gun grabbers will never rest.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 3:15:29 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty ridiculous the ATF wasn't satisfied with our first attempt at legalizing SBRs. Making us pass a fuckin law twice? I wish I could look forward to the day this fight is over, but the gun grabbers will never rest. This isn't an ATF issue. This is a home grown problem. The ATF was approving from 1s just fine until a WA state employee forced the issue with the ATF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 7:16:45 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This isn't an ATF issue. This is a home grown problem. The ATF was approving from 1s just fine until a WA state employee forced the issue with the ATF. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Pretty ridiculous the ATF wasn't satisfied with our first attempt at legalizing SBRs. Making us pass a fuckin law twice? I wish I could look forward to the day this fight is over, but the gun grabbers will never rest. This isn't an ATF issue. This is a home grown problem. The ATF was approving from 1s just fine until a WA state employee forced the issue with the ATF. There wouldn't have been an issue to force if the drafters had used more common-sense, inclusive language. I don't see why this has been, and continues to be, so difficult. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 7:55:52 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There wouldn't have been an issue to force if the drafters had used more common-sense, inclusive language. I don't see why this has been, and continues to be, so difficult. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 8:05:09 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Politicians who are lazy. We have one of the worst state legislatures in the country. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There wouldn't have been an issue to force if the drafters had used more common-sense, inclusive language. I don't see why this has been, and continues to be, so difficult. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 9:37:37 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is what every one wants. But in first reading, the updated law only covers manufacturers, not makers. Form 1s would still be screwed while manufacturers well get legal approval for form 2s . Take the time to do this right. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
IIRC manufacturing for regular joes (as opposed to cops, mil etc.) is illegal now... And this would fix that. It would be a positive change, but there's only so many times we can get an SBR fix through. If we only get one change, allowing people to make is MUCH more important. This is what every one wants. But in first reading, the updated law only covers manufacturers, not makers. Form 1s would still be screwed while manufacturers well get legal approval for form 2s . Take the time to do this right. So why is it being rewritten incorrectly again? Can anybody shed light on that? I don't want to have to pay extra money and have the extra hassle to SBR a rifle. As I'm sure none of us do. So what's the problem? Taking the time and effort to rewrite it and still not fixing the issue seems retarded to me. I mean honestly, what gives? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2015 10:20:12 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Politicians don't draft legislation... Their staff, or more often lobbyists, draft "suggested language". Face it, lobbyists know more about the subject than do legislators. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: There wouldn't have been an issue to force if the drafters had used more common-sense, inclusive language. I don't see why this has been, and continues to be, so difficult. Most are comfortable just showing up, collecting the small paycheck and cashing in on the fact that they are a state senator/representative. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 1:17:14 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There wouldn't have been an issue to force if the drafters had used more common-sense, inclusive language. I don't see why this has been, and continues to be, so difficult. I had no problem at all with SB 5956 as it was originally written; I thought the word "acquire" was entirely broad enough to cover make and manufacture. It seems nearly everyone did until someone didn't and had enough pull with the BATFE. Seeing as how we are still far ahead of where we were from 1994 to 2013, I've got little to complain about at the moment. Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 8:34:14 AM EDT
[#14]
Any impacts from this?
ATF 41P ... Hence, based on the information currently available, if you have not yet formed your trust or other fictitious entity, it will likely be in your best interest to form that entity now and submit your application(s), as it appears that any application submitted prior to the effective date of the regulation will be grandfathered. I have a number of clients that have formed their trusts and submitted their applications for all the NFA toys they could ever want, so that even if ATF-41P is implemented, it will likely have no applicability to them. Nevertheless, we are asking everyone to contact their U.S. Senator and demand that they approve, without amendment, H.R. 2578 – Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, which includes a provision prohibiting the ATF from utilizing any of the appropriated money for implementing a rule requiring a Chief Law Enforcement Officer signature(e.g. ATF-41P) and additionally includes a provision providing for the funding of federal firearms relief, which has not been available since 1992. ... http://blog.princelaw.com/2015/11/27/atf-41p-update/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 11:19:57 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So basically this bills fix is to help companies make money. Basically what we have here is typical American politics, the big companies get to rip off the little guy. If this bill only helps the manufacturers and doesn't fix the form one issue, then it's not worth supporting. Why support a bill that will just increase the cost of sbr for the common joe? A bill that will just line the pockets of the so called manufacturers? So hey gun shop here's 150 bucks to snap an upper on to my lower. Yeah totally worth it and fair. This is why I'm planning to move out of this state in the next 5 years. It's a state run by the rich for the rich. The common Joe is forgotten. Not everyone works for Amazon or Microsoft. Who exactly do you think these "big companies" are that are trying to rip people off and had anything to do with that draft of the bill? You sound crazy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2015 11:42:50 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Any impacts from this? ATF 41P ... Hence, based on the information currently available, if you have not yet formed your trust or other fictitious entity, it will likely be in your best interest to form that entity now and submit your application(s), as it appears that any application submitted prior to the effective date of the regulation will be grandfathered. I have a number of clients that have formed their trusts and submitted their applications for all the NFA toys they could ever want, so that even if ATF-41P is implemented, it will likely have no applicability to them. Nevertheless, we are asking everyone to contact their U.S. Senator and demand that they approve, without amendment, H.R. 2578 – Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, which includes a provision prohibiting the ATF from utilizing any of the appropriated money for implementing a rule requiring a Chief Law Enforcement Officer signature(e.g. ATF-41P) and additionally includes a provision providing for the funding of federal firearms relief, which has not been available since 1992. ... http://blog.princelaw.com/2015/11/27/atf-41p-update/ Comment removed - I am still half awake and in suppressor mode. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 4:14:51 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Any impacts from this? ATF 41P ... Hence, based on the information currently available, if you have not yet formed your trust or other fictitious entity, it will likely be in your best interest to form that entity now and submit your application(s), as it appears that any application submitted prior to the effective date of the regulation will be grandfathered. I have a number of clients that have formed their trusts and submitted their applications for all the NFA toys they could ever want, so that even if ATF-41P is implemented, it will likely have no applicability to them. Nevertheless, we are asking everyone to contact their U.S. Senator and demand that they approve, without amendment, H.R. 2578 – Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, which includes a provision prohibiting the ATF from utilizing any of the appropriated money for implementing a rule requiring a Chief Law Enforcement Officer signature(e.g. ATF-41P) and additionally includes a provision providing for the funding of federal firearms relief, which has not been available since 1992. ... http://blog.princelaw.com/2015/11/27/atf-41p-update/ It reads as though 41P will be here early in the year, and if you don't have your paperwork in before they implement it it'll affect you. I don't know exactly how they're handling WA Form 1s, but presumably they're turning them down pretty quickly. The legislature doesn't even convene until 1/11, so there wouldn't be time to get a bill through and signed by the Governor before 41P was implemented. Presumably folks who are waiting on Form 4s would be ok, probably folks doing Form 1 suppressors, but no Form 1 SBRs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 9:16:32 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It reads as though 41P will be here early in the year, and if you don't have your paperwork in before they implement it it'll affect you. I don't know exactly how they're handling WA Form 1s, but presumably they're turning them down pretty quickly. The legislature doesn't even convene until 1/11, so there wouldn't be time to get a bill through and signed by the Governor before 41P was implemented. Presumably folks who are waiting on Form 4s would be ok, probably folks doing Form 1 suppressors, but no Form 1 SBRs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Any impacts from this? ATF 41P ... Hence, based on the information currently available, if you have not yet formed your trust or other fictitious entity, it will likely be in your best interest to form that entity now and submit your application(s), as it appears that any application submitted prior to the effective date of the regulation will be grandfathered. I have a number of clients that have formed their trusts and submitted their applications for all the NFA toys they could ever want, so that even if ATF-41P is implemented, it will likely have no applicability to them. Nevertheless, we are asking everyone to contact their U.S. Senator and demand that they approve, without amendment, H.R. 2578 – Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, which includes a provision prohibiting the ATF from utilizing any of the appropriated money for implementing a rule requiring a Chief Law Enforcement Officer signature(e.g. ATF-41P) and additionally includes a provision providing for the funding of federal firearms relief, which has not been available since 1992. ... http://blog.princelaw.com/2015/11/27/atf-41p-update/ It reads as though 41P will be here early in the year, and if you don't have your paperwork in before they implement it it'll affect you. I don't know exactly how they're handling WA Form 1s, but presumably they're turning them down pretty quickly. The legislature doesn't even convene until 1/11, so there wouldn't be time to get a bill through and signed by the Governor before 41P was implemented. Presumably folks who are waiting on Form 4s would be ok, probably folks doing Form 1 suppressors, but no Form 1 SBRs. I figured the 41p ban hammer was going to fall. That a fly also got in the amendment soup isn't surprising, either. Glad I planned accordingly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2015 10:01:49 AM EDT
[#19]
There's no point in being paralyzed by potential 41p outcomes. We need to fix our SBR bill regardless. I'm a trust guy and love them, but that's a separate / federal issue. Fix the SBR bill!!
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 3:14:06 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There's no point in being paralyzed by potential 41p outcomes. We need to fix our SBR bill regardless. I'm a trust guy and love them, but that's a separate / federal issue. Fix the SBR bill!! For sure. 41P should not get in the way of that or slow it down. At least, that'd be my hope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 7:30:35 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For sure. 41P should not get in the way of that or slow it down. At least, that'd be my hope. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
There's no point in being paralyzed by potential 41p outcomes. We need to fix our SBR bill regardless. I'm a trust guy and love them, but that's a separate / federal issue. Fix the SBR bill!! For sure. 41P should not get in the way of that or slow it down. At least, that'd be my hope. That's the point. Aren't some States passing provisions to nullify federal laws from interfering in their internal affairs? Can something be done in the updated SBR bill to also neuter 41P? Not a specialist, just asking. I'm not getting a SBR anyway, until it's out of the NFA but that's a separate issue. But I'll call or write to my representatives to help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 3:52:52 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's the point. Aren't some States passing provisions to nullify federal laws from interfering in their internal affairs? Can something be done in the updated SBR bill to also neuter 41P? TN has a state law requiring CLEO's to sign ATF forms as long as the provider can own a firearm. There might be a few other states that do so also. I wrote up a proposal for a bill that was similar to TN's, sent it to my Republican Representatives, never got a reply. Randy |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2015 5:37:35 PM EDT
[#23]
Yeah that would be nice. As far as I know I cannot do a Form 1 in Pierce co. because Sheriff Pastor refuses to sign them, would have to take it up the chain.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2015 1:49:30 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yeah that would be nice. As far as I know I cannot do a Form 1 in Pierce co. because Sheriff Pastor refuses to sign them, would have to take it up the chain. I guess if this bill sees any movement in the upcoming legislative session, I could go down and ask. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 12:47:37 AM EDT
[#25]
From what I'm reading, we can't use our current lowers and shorty uppers to complete an SBR? I finally got around to wanting to send a lower off to engraving and now I'm reading this thread :(
I'm in Clark County, our Sherrif is pretty awesome. Please Tell me this is just for King County? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 1:18:07 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From what I'm reading, we can't use our current lowers and shorty uppers to complete an SBR? I finally got around to wanting to send a lower off to engraving and now I'm reading this thread :( I'm in Clark County, our Sherrif is pretty awesome. Please Tell me this is just for King County? As of right now, you can't do it yourself, all thanks to one unknown busybody asshole within WA DOL, who decided to alert the ATF that our new SBR laws didn't explicitly state that individuals could manufacture their own SBRs, only "acquire" them. The ATF could have told them to simply shove off, but instead they put the stops on all Form 1s to individuals and trusts. So currently, you have to have it done by a proper FFL, or have one transferred from out of state - incurring the additional fees and wait times therein. We're pissed off because this "new" revision of the SBR law doesn't appear to resolve the issues that allow one to build the SBR on their own, either via Form 1/4 as an individual or trust. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 1:25:28 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As of right now, you can't do it yourself, all thanks to one unknown busybody asshole within WA DOL, who decided to alert the ATF that our new SBR laws didn't explicitly state that individuals could manufacture their own SBRs, only "acquire" them. The ATF could have told them to simply shove off, but instead they put the stops on all Form 1s to individuals and trusts. So currently, you have to have it done by a proper FFL, or have one transferred from out of state - incurring the additional fees and wait times therein. We're pissed off because this "new" revision of the SBR law doesn't appear to resolve the issues that allow one to build the SBR on their own, either via Form 1/4 as an individual or trust. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: From what I'm reading, we can't use our current lowers and shorty uppers to complete an SBR? I finally got around to wanting to send a lower off to engraving and now I'm reading this thread :( I'm in Clark County, our Sherrif is pretty awesome. Please Tell me this is just for King County? As of right now, you can't do it yourself, all thanks to one unknown busybody asshole within WA DOL, who decided to alert the ATF that our new SBR laws didn't explicitly state that individuals could manufacture their own SBRs, only "acquire" them. The ATF could have told them to simply shove off, but instead they put the stops on all Form 1s to individuals and trusts. So currently, you have to have it done by a proper FFL, or have one transferred from out of state - incurring the additional fees and wait times therein. We're pissed off because this "new" revision of the SBR law doesn't appear to resolve the issues that allow one to build the SBR on their own, either via Form 1/4 as an individual or trust. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 3:17:49 AM EDT
[#28]
Yeah it would be interesting to know. If I had known what was going to transpire, I would've done mine right away.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 4:03:51 AM EDT
[#29]
I know of three that were approved
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 4:39:51 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah it would be interesting to know. If I had known what was going to transpire, I would've done mine right away. Never ever "wait" on something like this. I submitted 4 form 1s the first day the law was in effect. I only wish I had done more!! Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 2:38:37 PM EDT
[#31]
Ever talked to those guys about the possibility of a shall sign bill for cleo buyoffs?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 5:07:46 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As of right now, you can't do it yourself, all thanks to one unknown busybody asshole within WA DOL, who decided to alert the ATF that our new SBR laws didn't explicitly state that individuals could manufacture their own SBRs, only "acquire" them. The ATF could have told them to simply shove off, but instead they put the stops on all Form 1s to individuals and trusts. So currently, you have to have it done by a proper FFL, or have one transferred from out of state - incurring the additional fees and wait times therein. We're pissed off because this "new" revision of the SBR law doesn't appear to resolve the issues that allow one to build the SBR on their own, either via Form 1/4 as an individual or trust. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
From what I'm reading, we can't use our current lowers and shorty uppers to complete an SBR? I finally got around to wanting to send a lower off to engraving and now I'm reading this thread :( I'm in Clark County, our Sherrif is pretty awesome. Please Tell me this is just for King County? As of right now, you can't do it yourself, all thanks to one unknown busybody asshole within WA DOL, who decided to alert the ATF that our new SBR laws didn't explicitly state that individuals could manufacture their own SBRs, only "acquire" them. The ATF could have told them to simply shove off, but instead they put the stops on all Form 1s to individuals and trusts. So currently, you have to have it done by a proper FFL, or have one transferred from out of state - incurring the additional fees and wait times therein. We're pissed off because this "new" revision of the SBR law doesn't appear to resolve the issues that allow one to build the SBR on their own, either via Form 1/4 as an individual or trust. These things are legal in like 45 other states. Why the fuck can't we just copy what they've done and avoid all this legalese bullshit? Just copy some other state's law, word-for-word, and be done with it. Is it really that hard? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 5:38:21 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As of right now, you can't do it yourself, all thanks to one unknown busybody asshole within WA DOL, who decided to alert the ATF that our new SBR laws didn't explicitly state that individuals could manufacture their own SBRs, only "acquire" them. The ATF could have told them to simply shove off, but instead they put the stops on all Form 1s to individuals and trusts. So currently, you have to have it done by a proper FFL, or have one transferred from out of state - incurring the additional fees and wait times therein. We're pissed off because this "new" revision of the SBR law doesn't appear to resolve the issues that allow one to build the SBR on their own, either via Form 1/4 as an individual or trust. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
From what I'm reading, we can't use our current lowers and shorty uppers to complete an SBR? I finally got around to wanting to send a lower off to engraving and now I'm reading this thread :( I'm in Clark County, our Sherrif is pretty awesome. Please Tell me this is just for King County? As of right now, you can't do it yourself, all thanks to one unknown busybody asshole within WA DOL, who decided to alert the ATF that our new SBR laws didn't explicitly state that individuals could manufacture their own SBRs, only "acquire" them. The ATF could have told them to simply shove off, but instead they put the stops on all Form 1s to individuals and trusts. So currently, you have to have it done by a proper FFL, or have one transferred from out of state - incurring the additional fees and wait times therein. We're pissed off because this "new" revision of the SBR law doesn't appear to resolve the issues that allow one to build the SBR on their own, either via Form 1/4 as an individual or trust. I have a local FFL I use that is a Class 3, stating that he can use one of my lowers that has never been built and do a Form 1. I guess he may not be up to date? He does all my NFA stuff and I have a trust he updates for me. Thanks! ETA - I found a DD MK18 down in AZ for $1599.00. I'm about to call them back and click the button on that guy today unless anyone knows of a better deal or cheaper way to go abouts an SBR? :) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 6:44:54 PM EDT
[#34]
Find a class 2 that's willing to do a conversion, and it doesn't matter if it's been built as anything. You can bring them all the parts you want or order stuff and they just register it. You can always just transfer something too, it just adds 4-8 weeks is all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 6:47:32 PM EDT
[#35]
Two here
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 7:02:33 PM EDT
[#36]
Any Class 2's down in SW WA? :)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2015 11:15:39 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have a local FFL I use that is a Class 3, stating that he can use one of my lowers that has never been built and do a Form 1. I guess he may not be up to date? He does all my NFA stuff and I have a trust he updates for me. Thanks! ETA - I found a DD MK18 down in AZ for $1599.00. I'm about to call them back and click the button on that guy today unless anyone knows of a better deal or cheaper way to go abouts an SBR? :) Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: From what I'm reading, we can't use our current lowers and shorty uppers to complete an SBR? I finally got around to wanting to send a lower off to engraving and now I'm reading this thread :( I'm in Clark County, our Sherrif is pretty awesome. Please Tell me this is just for King County? As of right now, you can't do it yourself, all thanks to one unknown busybody asshole within WA DOL, who decided to alert the ATF that our new SBR laws didn't explicitly state that individuals could manufacture their own SBRs, only "acquire" them. The ATF could have told them to simply shove off, but instead they put the stops on all Form 1s to individuals and trusts. So currently, you have to have it done by a proper FFL, or have one transferred from out of state - incurring the additional fees and wait times therein. We're pissed off because this "new" revision of the SBR law doesn't appear to resolve the issues that allow one to build the SBR on their own, either via Form 1/4 as an individual or trust. I have a local FFL I use that is a Class 3, stating that he can use one of my lowers that has never been built and do a Form 1. I guess he may not be up to date? He does all my NFA stuff and I have a trust he updates for me. Thanks! ETA - I found a DD MK18 down in AZ for $1599.00. I'm about to call them back and click the button on that guy today unless anyone knows of a better deal or cheaper way to go abouts an SBR? :) |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2015 3:23:33 AM EDT
[#38]
Looks like there is a Tier 1 in NC that's closed, and a Tier 1 in Spokane that wouldn't work because it has to be out of state - iirc?
Thx! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2015 1:37:56 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Looks like there is a Tier 1 in NC that's closed, and a Tier 1 in Spokane that wouldn't work because it has to be out of state - iirc? Thx! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2015 5:14:33 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought you were looking for a factory SBR. You can buy those and have them transferred in state. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Looks like there is a Tier 1 in NC that's closed, and a Tier 1 in Spokane that wouldn't work because it has to be out of state - iirc? Thx! Oh really? I'm obviously confused 
Then what is it you have to buy out of state? A stripped lower that I register as a SBR then throw my upper on? Please say yes lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2015 6:54:28 PM EDT
[#41]
You guys are confusing yourselves. You can can go to a dealer and buy an SBR that was factory made like a DD MK18 or whatever you can think of. OR you can go to a class 2 and they can make an SBR from parts. Those are the options. You dont register anything yourself or even need to bring parts, but you can supply your own stuff.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 12:34:54 AM EDT
[#42]
Yep, got it. Found one tonight. Thank you!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2015 1:46:53 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, got it. Found one tonight. Thank you! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/4/2016 10:13:52 PM EDT
[#44]
White House has announed 41p is coming into effect.
Hopefully this doesn't slow down momentum for the SBR cleanup bill. Also, whether in the SBR bill or another bill, has anyone talked about "Shall Sign" legislation? https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2016 12:16:27 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
White House has announed 41p is coming into effect. Hopefully this doesn't slow down momentum for the SBR cleanup bill. Also, whether in the SBR bill or another bill, has anyone talked about "Shall Sign" legislation? https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our 41P final ruling CLEO requirement on trusts is removed. We simply have to send finger prints/photograph to our CLEO to keep on file instead, it seems. Obviously pure bull shit but at least we don't have to worry about a liberal blocking us from buying them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2016 12:16:43 AM EDT
[#46]
From another board:
Quoted:
https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download "This final rule was signed by the Attorney General on January 4, 2016. It is effective 180 days after date of publication in the Federal Register. The final rule published in the Federal Register may differ slightly from this version as a result of Federal Register formatting. Billing Code: 4410-FY-P DEP ARTMENT OF JUSTICE Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 27 CFR Part 479 [Docket No. ATF 41F; AG Order No. 3608-2016] RIN 1140-AA43 Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect to Making or Transferring a· Firearm AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, Department of Justice. ACTION: Final rule." "To lessen potential compliance burdens for the public and law enforcement, DOJ has revised the final rule to eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) and instead require CLEO notification." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2016 2:16:59 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
41P final ruling CLEO requirement on trusts is removed. We simply have to send finger prints/photograph to our CLEO to keep on file instead, it seems. Obviously pure bull shit but at least we don't have to worry about a liberal blocking us from buying them. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
White House has announed 41p is coming into effect. Hopefully this doesn't slow down momentum for the SBR cleanup bill. Also, whether in the SBR bill or another bill, has anyone talked about "Shall Sign" legislation? https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our 41P final ruling CLEO requirement on trusts is removed. We simply have to send finger prints/photograph to our CLEO to keep on file instead, it seems. Obviously pure bull shit but at least we don't have to worry about a liberal blocking us from buying them. I don't see where the CLEO gets a copy of prints/pictures, just gets notification..... And I believe that the CLEO signoff for individual applications is gone too.... We have 180 days from publication to get the process down. Until then, BUY EARLY and BUY OFTEN! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2016 10:01:13 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't see where the CLEO gets a copy of prints/pictures, just gets notification..... And I believe that the CLEO signoff for individual applications is gone too.... We have 180 days from publication to get the process down. Until then, BUY EARLY and BUY OFTEN! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
White House has announed 41p is coming into effect. Hopefully this doesn't slow down momentum for the SBR cleanup bill. Also, whether in the SBR bill or another bill, has anyone talked about "Shall Sign" legislation? https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our 41P final ruling CLEO requirement on trusts is removed. We simply have to send finger prints/photograph to our CLEO to keep on file instead, it seems. Obviously pure bull shit but at least we don't have to worry about a liberal blocking us from buying them. I don't see where the CLEO gets a copy of prints/pictures, just gets notification..... And I believe that the CLEO signoff for individual applications is gone too.... We have 180 days from publication to get the process down. Until then, BUY EARLY and BUY OFTEN! Bought another can last week, but am patiently waiting for this change in the law to happen so I can still Form1 my next project. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2016 11:04:32 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't see where the CLEO gets a copy of prints/pictures, just gets notification..... And I believe that the CLEO signoff for individual applications is gone too.... We have 180 days from publication to get the process down. Until then, BUY EARLY and BUY OFTEN! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: White House has announed 41p is coming into effect. Hopefully this doesn't slow down momentum for the SBR cleanup bill. Also, whether in the SBR bill or another bill, has anyone talked about "Shall Sign" legislation? https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/04/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence-and-make-our 41P final ruling CLEO requirement on trusts is removed. We simply have to send finger prints/photograph to our CLEO to keep on file instead, it seems. Obviously pure bull shit but at least we don't have to worry about a liberal blocking us from buying them. I don't see where the CLEO gets a copy of prints/pictures, just gets notification..... And I believe that the CLEO signoff for individual applications is gone too.... We have 180 days from publication to get the process down. Until then, BUY EARLY and BUY OFTEN! Yep... CLEO sign-off just bit the big one across the board (as of July, when this takes effect)... All you have to do is mail a copy of the completed Form to them (just like mailing a copy of your C&R FFL application).... Because the antis thought gun-trusts were about background-check-avoidance, rather than getting out of the sign-off... Irony, eh? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/5/2016 11:54:49 PM EDT
[#50]
That's good news! I thought they were going to do away with trusts and require Cleo sign off
|
|
|
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.
