User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/5/2014 6:57:33 PM EDT
[#1]
Thats fucked. They better not make you wait 11 more. . .
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2014 8:11:32 PM EDT
[#2]
And I'm assuming that on a post 94 receiver? Cause most wouldn't have a CERT for a pre 94.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 3:36:02 AM EDT
[#3]
I'm getting ready to send mine in and its pre94...I guess I have to call the manufacturer for confirmation now
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 3:38:57 AM EDT
[#4]
Have you gotten your AW certs yet? It could be a long wait.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 3:43:28 AM EDT
[#5]
Did you do this via a trust? If not, I wonder why the signature of the CLEO isn't enough. Basically their signature states that you would not be breaking any state or local laws by manufacturing or possessing the firearm.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 4:06:32 AM EDT
[#6]
Is this real or another mag tax thread? Lets see the letter.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 4:41:44 AM EDT
[#7]
So.........
Have you received your AW slipd yet? Im sure, like other corrections, they put your paperwork on hold and process it when the corrections arrive. I have both AW slips and mag cert already. Both mailed about middle of Dec |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 5:44:23 AM EDT
[#8]
This correction should be a quick matter if you send the slip in.
I had a signature issue and ATF sent it to the right people and corrected it without me lifting a finger, oddly enough.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 5:48:23 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This correction should be a quick matter if you send the slip in. I had a signature issue and ATF sent it to the right people and corrected it without me lifting a finger, oddly enough. the problem is the state taking their sweet time sending slips back |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 6:17:08 AM EDT
[#10]
Just came here to post this.i also got a correction letter yesterday saying per ct state law all transferee/transferor/applicants must provide a valid long gun eligibility certificate and or certificate of possession of assault weapon to ensure compliance with state law provided by the commissioner of emergency services and public protectionI.i did a form 1 for a preban lower so I didn't register it so no assault weapon cert and I only have my pistol permit which should trump all but do they know that .says I only have 30 days to get what they want to them.guess I am calling tomorrow to find out
<edit to add image for silveradot...modrapos> |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 6:27:44 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just came here to post this.i also got a correction letter yesterday saying per ct state law all transferee/transferor/applicants must provide a valid long gun eligibility certificate and or certificate of possession of assault weapon to ensure compliance with state law provided by the commissioner of emergency services and public protectionI.i did a form 1 for a preban lower so I didn't register it so no assault weapon cert and I only have my pistol permit which should trump all but do they know that .says I only have 30 days to get what they want to them.guess I am calling tomorrow to find out Tagging this bitch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 6:30:51 AM EDT
[#12]
The funny thing about all of this is they really think that we are dumb enough to send information on an unregistered assault weapon to out local police and then the atf?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 6:37:07 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just came here to post this.i also got a correction letter yesterday saying per ct state law all transferee/transferor/applicants must provide a valid long gun eligibility certificate and or certificate of possession of assault weapon to ensure compliance with state law provided by the commissioner of emergency services and public protectionI.i did a form 1 for a preban lower so I didn't register it so no assault weapon cert and I only have my pistol permit which should trump all but do they know that .says I only have 30 days to get what they want to them.guess I am calling tomorrow to find out Please post the letter with your information redacted. I'd like to see what they think they are doing. NOTHING in the new law requires an EC, LGC, or Pistol Permit for mere possession of a firearm. I can understand it being required for future transfers but that is a state thing, not a federal thing. Way to go ATF, you just increased the workload of the NFA branch for no reason. I wonder if some of this has to do with BGM not doing the appropriate tax paperwork... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 6:37:13 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The funny thing about all of this is they really think that we are dumb enough to send information on an unregistered assault weapon to out local police and then the atf? My form 1was sent in 3/30/13 there was no assault weapon reg at that time |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 6:43:14 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please post the letter with your information redacted. I'd like to see what they think they are doing. NOTHING in the new law requires an EC, LGC, or Pistol Permit for mere possession of a firearm. I can understand it being required for future transfers but that is a state thing, not a federal thing. Way to go ATF, you just increased the workload of the NFA branch for no reason. I wonder if some of this has to do with BGM not doing the appropriate tax paperwork... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Just came here to post this.i also got a correction letter yesterday saying per ct state law all transferee/transferor/applicants must provide a valid long gun eligibility certificate and or certificate of possession of assault weapon to ensure compliance with state law provided by the commissioner of emergency services and public protectionI.i did a form 1 for a preban lower so I didn't register it so no assault weapon cert and I only have my pistol permit which should trump all but do they know that .says I only have 30 days to get what they want to them.guess I am calling tomorrow to find out Please post the letter with your information redacted. I'd like to see what they think they are doing. NOTHING in the new law requires an EC, LGC, or Pistol Permit for mere possession of a firearm. I can understand it being required for future transfers but that is a state thing, not a federal thing. Way to go ATF, you just increased the workload of the NFA branch for no reason. I wonder if some of this has to do with BGM not doing the appropriate tax paperwork... Sent you an email |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 7:05:50 AM EDT
[#16]
My paperwork was a form 1, individual.....I already have my AW certificate, just wanted to give a heads up on this new bullcrap.....I don't have a scanner at home so I can post a copy of the letter tomorrow when I can scan the document at work.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 7:15:17 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you do this via a trust? If not, I wonder why the signature of the CLEO isn't enough. Basically their signature states that you would not be breaking any state or local laws by manufacturing or possessing the firearm. ATF has always required evidence of necessary state licenses/permits/authorizations prior to approving applications; in addition to certification that he application did not violate state law. Surprisingly, when I FOI'ed the denial numbers, there were a number of applications which despite certification were disapproved to state law issues. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 7:17:37 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just came here to post this.i also got a correction letter yesterday saying per ct state law all transferee/transferor/applicants must provide a valid long gun eligibility certificate and or certificate of possession of assault weapon to ensure compliance with state law provided by the commissioner of emergency services and public protectionI.i did a form 1 for a preban lower so I didn't register it so no assault weapon cert and I only have my pistol permit which should trump all but do they know that .says I only have 30 days to get what they want to them.guess I am calling tomorrow to find out It sounds like they have an interpretation problem on whatever the DESPP Commissioner sent them, (at a minimum) with regard to the necessity to have a purchase credential to make. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 12:12:08 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: the problem is the state taking their sweet time sending slips back Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: This correction should be a quick matter if you send the slip in. I had a signature issue and ATF sent it to the right people and corrected it without me lifting a finger, oddly enough. the problem is the state taking their sweet time sending slips back Are you trying to tell me the incredible state government of Connecticut is slow to deliver when it comes to simple paperwork? Surely, you jest, sir.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 12:22:14 PM EDT
[#20]
My first impression of this makes me think that from this point on any firearm that doesnt have an AW Cert will never be able to be SBR'd in CT. Maybe they would authorize an application without one if your OAL was 30" or more but that really defeats the purpose here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 12:55:05 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My first impression of this makes me think that from this point on any firearm that doesnt have an AW Cert will never be able to be SBR'd in CT. Maybe they would authorize an application without one if your OAL was 30" or more but that really defeats the purpose here. List it at +30, build it at +30, then make it whatever the hell you want |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 1:46:23 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My first impression of this makes me think that from this point on any firearm that doesnt have an AW Cert will never be able to be SBR'd in CT. Maybe they would authorize an application without one if your OAL was 30" or more but that really defeats the purpose here. It does raise the issue of applying for the Certificate of Possession. After Jan 1, 2014 there are very few instances under the law where someone can submit an application for the Certificate of Possession on a firearm that is considered under the law as an assault weapon post Jan 1, 2014. The way the stupid unconstitutional law is written any semiautomatic centerfire rifle manufactured after 9/13/94 that was not registered as an assault weapon by 1/1/14 cannot (with few narrow exceptions) be turned into an SBR where the over all length of the semiautomatic centerfire rifle is under 30 inches. While one could cut down the barrel length they'd have to find a way to lengthen the rest of the semiautomatic centerfire rifle to avoid the under 30 inches in overall length garbage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 1:58:05 PM EDT
[#23]
And in CT you can bring the barrel length down to 12 or less inches to be a pistol by definition but you will still be in 'salty territory with a magazine outside the grip in most instances. I should make an AR mag with a grip glued around it. I would be famous.
(Edited twice for spelling and comprehension) |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 2:16:08 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
List it at +30, build it at +30, then make it whatever the hell you want Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
My first impression of this makes me think that from this point on any firearm that doesnt have an AW Cert will never be able to be SBR'd in CT. Maybe they would authorize an application without one if your OAL was 30" or more but that really defeats the purpose here. List it at +30, build it at +30, then make it whatever the hell you want That would get the job done but once it is made below 30" it would be manufacturing a salt weapon and a felony. You may as well break all the rules and not file anything then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 5:04:53 PM EDT
[#25]
I see a sharp reduction in SBRs in CT.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 5:40:12 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That would get the job done but once it is made below 30" it would be manufacturing a salt weapon and a felony. You may as well break all the rules and not file anything then. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
My first impression of this makes me think that from this point on any firearm that doesnt have an AW Cert will never be able to be SBR'd in CT. Maybe they would authorize an application without one if your OAL was 30" or more but that really defeats the purpose here. List it at +30, build it at +30, then make it whatever the hell you want That would get the job done but once it is made below 30" it would be manufacturing a salt weapon and a felony. You may as well break all the rules and not file anything then. It would be perfectly legal to do that to a preban which doesn't require an AW cert. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 6:10:47 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And I'm assuming that on a post 94 receiver? Cause most wouldn't have a CERT for a pre 94. From what I've read in this thread, no cert no SBR. which means Pre 94 items are null and void. I have a 30 y/o Norinco AK I was planning on SBRing. Looks like that isn't going to happen as there is no way I'm going to obtain a letter from Norinco stating this was built prior to Sept. 94. A call to the ATF will be required to get further details |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 6:12:37 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just came here to post this.i also got a correction letter yesterday saying per ct state law all transferee/transferor/applicants must provide a valid long gun eligibility certificate and or certificate of possession of assault weapon to ensure compliance with state law provided by the commissioner of emergency services and public protectionI.i did a form 1 for a preban lower so I didn't register it so no assault weapon cert and I only have my pistol permit which should trump all but do they know that .says I only have 30 days to get what they want to them.guess I am calling tomorrow to find out
Letter uploaded, adding to silveradot post. Personal information and exif data removed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 6:23:42 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From what I've read in this thread, no cert no SBR. which means Pre 94 items are null and void. I have a 30 y/o Norinco AK I was planning on SBRing. Looks like that isn't going to happen as there is no way I'm going to obtain a letter from Norinco stating this was built prior to Sept. 94. A call to the ATF will be required to get further details Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And I'm assuming that on a post 94 receiver? Cause most wouldn't have a CERT for a pre 94. From what I've read in this thread, no cert no SBR. which means Pre 94 items are null and void. I have a 30 y/o Norinco AK I was planning on SBRing. Looks like that isn't going to happen as there is no way I'm going to obtain a letter from Norinco stating this was built prior to Sept. 94. A call to the ATF will be required to get further details I don't know the more I read this letter it seems that they want either the long gun cert or the assault weapon cert or being the key word |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 6:29:53 PM EDT
[#30]
Does this mean I can SBR a lower that I have registered with the state?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 6:42:15 PM EDT
[#31]
I'll definitely be watching this thread as I just submitted a Form 1 for a pre-ban. I had a trust drafted and I bought a pre-ban specifically to build an SBR. If the ATF gives me a hard time I'm going to be really pissed.
I'm very curious to find out if proof of manufacture date will be sufficient to satisfy the ATF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 6:52:56 PM EDT
[#32]
this may explain the delay in my efiled form 1 (trust, post-94 lower). I'm still seeing eform 1's getting done in around 90 days (friends outside of CT) but mine is already 120+ days.
glad I registered one lower (apparently the right one). guess I'll have to wait for mommy to sign my permission slip, then maybe daddy will sign it next. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 6:52:57 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll definitely be watching this thread as I just submitted a Form 1 for a pre-ban. I had a trust drafted and I bought a pre-ban specifically to build an SBR. If the ATF gives me a hard time I'm going to be really pissed. I'm very curious to find out if proof of manufacture date will be sufficient to satisfy the ATF. ATF may view approving a Form 1 as manufacturing a new firearm (somehow making all Form 1 items post-ban) while CT views the original mfg date of the receiver as the birthday. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 7:43:03 PM EDT
[#34]
What's up with the "and or" in the letter? Hopefully its good to go with just a permit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 7:44:56 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ATF may view approving a Form 1 as manufacturing a new firearm (somehow making all Form 1 items post-ban) while CT views the original mfg date of the receiver as the birthday. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll definitely be watching this thread as I just submitted a Form 1 for a pre-ban. I had a trust drafted and I bought a pre-ban specifically to build an SBR. If the ATF gives me a hard time I'm going to be really pissed. I'm very curious to find out if proof of manufacture date will be sufficient to satisfy the ATF. ATF may view approving a Form 1 as manufacturing a new firearm (somehow making all Form 1 items post-ban) while CT views the original mfg date of the receiver as the birthday. If this is true it will really suck 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/6/2014 8:29:48 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
From what I've read in this thread, no cert no SBR. which means Pre 94 items are null and void. I have a 30 y/o Norinco AK I was planning on SBRing. Looks like that isn't going to happen as there is no way I'm going to obtain a letter from Norinco stating this was built prior to Sept. 94. A call to the ATF will be required to get further details Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And I'm assuming that on a post 94 receiver? Cause most wouldn't have a CERT for a pre 94. From what I've read in this thread, no cert no SBR. which means Pre 94 items are null and void. I have a 30 y/o Norinco AK I was planning on SBRing. Looks like that isn't going to happen as there is no way I'm going to obtain a letter from Norinco stating this was built prior to Sept. 94. A call to the ATF will be required to get further details Actually after seeing a copy of the actual letter. Seems like a Valid CT Pistol Permit will suffice, Pre Bans look to be good to go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2014 3:08:16 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'll definitely be watching this thread as I just submitted a Form 1 for a pre-ban. I had a trust drafted and I bought a pre-ban specifically to build an SBR. If the ATF gives me a hard time I'm going to be really pissed. I'm very curious to find out if proof of manufacture date will be sufficient to satisfy the ATF. Please keep us updated, as you know I just did the same thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2014 3:10:57 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's up with the "and or" in the letter? Hopefully its good to go with just a permit. The only thing I can think of is that ATF doesn't care about AW vs. non-AW; they just want to make sure you can legally own the rifle in any configuration. For all they know, the firearm I described will be a bolt action with a fixed mag. The AW cert may just be an easy way to prove to them that you already own the host and don't need a permit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2014 4:11:30 AM EDT
[#39]
Can I submit additional info after sending the form 1 to prevent a delay or will it just get tossed in a pile and shredded while Farris laughs?
And isn't that the purpose of the CLEO sign off??? To confirm you are legally able to posses it in the area. That would make too much sense I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2014 5:19:40 AM EDT
[#40]
Was going to post my letter but I see it's already been done so no sense in that now.....I will let you guys know when my stamp arrives.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2014 6:57:59 AM EDT
[#41]
Fuck, I submitted one in Oct.. for a preban that i didn't reg because I didn't need to.
Please post back with your findings.. I have letters from Bushmaster stating they are preban..but will that fly? such bullshit, it was submitted and they cashed check prior to Jan 1st, there SHOULD be no issue as this was PRIOR to the law.. I know.. good luck with that holding water.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2014 7:26:39 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can I submit additional info after sending the form 1 to prevent a delay or will it just get tossed in a pile and shredded while Farris laughs? And isn't that the purpose of the CLEO sign off??? To confirm you are legally able to posses it in the area. That would make too much sense I guess. There are two schools of thought on that 1) wait until you hear from them so as to avoid confusion 2) call them immediately and ask them what they would like you to do, thereby taking them away from their paperwork and further delaying the approval of other forms
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2014 1:35:53 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ATF may view approving a Form 1 as manufacturing a new firearm (somehow making all Form 1 items post-ban) while CT views the original mfg date of the receiver as the birthday. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'll definitely be watching this thread as I just submitted a Form 1 for a pre-ban. I had a trust drafted and I bought a pre-ban specifically to build an SBR. If the ATF gives me a hard time I'm going to be really pissed. I'm very curious to find out if proof of manufacture date will be sufficient to satisfy the ATF. ATF may view approving a Form 1 as manufacturing a new firearm (somehow making all Form 1 items post-ban) while CT views the original mfg date of the receiver as the birthday. Not likely. During the former federal assault weapons ban, ATF opinion was that a preban (title 1 firearm) did not lose its status if it was reconfigured into an SBR configuration via a Form 1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2014 1:39:58 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not likely. During the former federal assault weapons ban, ATF opinion was that a preban (title 1 firearm) did not lose its status if it was reconfigured into an SBR configuration via a Form 1. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll definitely be watching this thread as I just submitted a Form 1 for a pre-ban. I had a trust drafted and I bought a pre-ban specifically to build an SBR. If the ATF gives me a hard time I'm going to be really pissed. I'm very curious to find out if proof of manufacture date will be sufficient to satisfy the ATF. ATF may view approving a Form 1 as manufacturing a new firearm (somehow making all Form 1 items post-ban) while CT views the original mfg date of the receiver as the birthday. Not likely. During the former federal assault weapons ban, ATF opinion was that a preban (title 1 firearm) did not lose its status if it was reconfigured into an SBR configuration via a Form 1. Interesting, I believe Joel at Remarcable Arms has either stated otherwise, or that it put the firearm into a gray area here in CT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2014 2:05:53 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting, I believe Joel at Remarcable Arms has either stated otherwise, or that it put the firearm into a gray area here in CT. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll definitely be watching this thread as I just submitted a Form 1 for a pre-ban. I had a trust drafted and I bought a pre-ban specifically to build an SBR. If the ATF gives me a hard time I'm going to be really pissed. I'm very curious to find out if proof of manufacture date will be sufficient to satisfy the ATF. ATF may view approving a Form 1 as manufacturing a new firearm (somehow making all Form 1 items post-ban) while CT views the original mfg date of the receiver as the birthday. Not likely. During the former federal assault weapons ban, ATF opinion was that a preban (title 1 firearm) did not lose its status if it was reconfigured into an SBR configuration via a Form 1. Interesting, I believe Joel at Remarcable Arms has either stated otherwise, or that it put the firearm into a gray area here in CT. Knowing ATF, it is entirely possible that IOI's and/or FTB personnel issued different guidance to different folks at different times. Obviously, I can only speak for the (old)FTB letters that I have seen- which are worth nothing (legally) to anybody other than the addressee. Connecticut state issues (and the ambiguity of our laws) could really make the issue an even bigger mess. However the posted correction letter doesn't seem to indicate that ATF-NFA Branch is subscribing to the school of thought that a new assault weapon is created, since they are asking for proof of lawful ownership (instead of proof of exemption). That letter DOES not reflect comprehension of the law on the part of the ATF official who created the text. It's almost as bad as when I have thoughts and start posting on complicated topics or designing worksheets at 2AM I almost feel like writing a letter to the NFA branch chief next week.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2014 3:06:06 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My paperwork was a form 1, individual.....I already have my AW certificate, just wanted to give a heads up on this new bullcrap.....I don't have a scanner at home so I can post a copy of the letter tomorrow when I can scan the document at work. I wouldn't sweat this. Your paperwork is on hold at ATF. When you get them what they need, you will get your stamp within 1-2 weeks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2014 4:12:19 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just came here to post this.i also got a correction letter yesterday saying per ct state law all transferee/transferor/applicants must provide a valid long gun eligibility certificate and or certificate of possession of assault weapon to ensure compliance with state law provided by the commissioner of emergency services and public protectionI.i did a form 1 for a preban lower so I didn't register it so no assault weapon cert and I only have my pistol permit which should trump all but do they know that .says I only have 30 days to get what they want to them.guess I am calling tomorrow to find out http://i743.photobucket.com/albums/xx78/Andrapos/Arfcom/ATFletterforCT_zpsd83bdc72.jpg <edit to add image for silveradot...modrapos> And all this shit is not an infringement of our rights according to the 2nd Amendment? We follow like sheeple and go BAAAA when ever the slimy cocksuckers we elected crack the whip? Fuck them, grow a pair and vote them out of office or get them out of office by more expedient means. They are taking our RIGHTS away incrementaly, like a lobster in a cold pot of water, they turn up the heat and the next thing you know, you are dinner. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/7/2014 5:43:42 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting, I believe Joel at Remarcable Arms has either stated otherwise, or that it put the firearm into a gray area here in CT. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll definitely be watching this thread as I just submitted a Form 1 for a pre-ban. I had a trust drafted and I bought a pre-ban specifically to build an SBR. If the ATF gives me a hard time I'm going to be really pissed. I'm very curious to find out if proof of manufacture date will be sufficient to satisfy the ATF. ATF may view approving a Form 1 as manufacturing a new firearm (somehow making all Form 1 items post-ban) while CT views the original mfg date of the receiver as the birthday. Not likely. During the former federal assault weapons ban, ATF opinion was that a preban (title 1 firearm) did not lose its status if it was reconfigured into an SBR configuration via a Form 1. Interesting, I believe Joel at Remarcable Arms has either stated otherwise, or that it put the firearm into a gray area here in CT. I can't/ wont speak for Joel but I do believe you are confusing matters. Assault weapons, mg hosts, threaded barrels etc.... Best bet is to email Joel a d ask what he has heard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 6:14:48 AM EDT
[#49]
Well got a call from a nice lady at the ATF this morning looking for my AW cert that I don't have because I didn't register my pre ban,so I tell her that pre Sept 13 1994 fireams don't have to be registered and could be transferred in CT,so she tells me to get a letter from the DESPP stating so, as we were talking more she found the letter that Bradford sent out saying all pre bans are GTG she tells me she will call me back and let me know what the examiner says.I sent in my pistol permit and when I asked her why that wasnt good enough she said they need an AW cert.Probly screwed if they want date of manufacture.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/16/2014 6:45:29 AM EDT
[#50]
Thanks for the update. I will be sending mine to my local PD for approval then out to the ATF so let us know what the ATF has to say about this issue.
|
|
|
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.
