Armory Sponsor
Posted: 1/28/2026 11:19:11 AM EDT
|
I spoke with my local ATF office and, not that I don't trust them, but...they are telling me that a local agency has to use an in-state FFL/SOT to accept NFA SBRs and then transfer using a Form 4. Can't the agency just use a Form 5 to it's individual officers? |
Don't let the join date fool you... here since '97
Joined:
May 2014
Posts:
7211
EE: 100% (24)
VA, USA
|
From an agency liability point of view, transferring through an FFL reduces the agencies exposure, should the SBR be used later in a bad act. From the simplicity point of view form 5 from agency to officer is a simplest way, and also the officer can retain a gun through the entire process. All depends on what your chief wants to do. |
|
Originally Posted By 18B30: From an agency liability point of view, transferring through an FFL reduces the agencies exposure, should the SBR be used later in a bad act. Originally Posted By 18B30: From an agency liability point of view, transferring through an FFL reduces the agencies exposure, should the SBR be used later in a bad act. If the agency does transfer them directly, they can/should run the transferee using NCIC purpose code F (for Firearms-related inquiry) and retain the printed result with the transfer documentation. That’ll prove they conducted a background check at least as thorough as any FFL’s NICS check. From the simplicity point of view form 5 from agency to officer is a simplest way, and also the officer can retain a gun through the entire process. All depends on what your chief wants to do. |
|
Originally Posted By 18B30: From an agency liability point of view, transferring through an FFL reduces the agencies exposure, should the SBR be used later in a bad act. Not when everyone involved testifies the guns were sold by the agency, all recipients were agency officers, and financial trail shows agency got the money. I would say it is worse, as it looks like you are conspiring to hide the actual seller. |
Armory Sponsor