User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/13/2023 8:38:05 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: Hope this is in the right forum for non-satire answers. Please help me understand exemptions further. Here we see a list of guns exempt from the NFA while being/not being subject to the GCA of 68. Is there any rule within these exemptions that prevent integral suppression of NFA-exempt guns? I am NOT taking into consideration C&R requirements. The only integral suppressed 'non-firearm' I know of is the Maxim 50, and I assume these exemptions are treated very similarly. I can't find information on this modification topic. Any and all info is appreciated; long and short. Thanks as always, fellow enthusiasts. When that list was codified, it was intended to exempt pistol shoulder stocks & "trapper" bbl rifles from being subject to the NFA. I don't see a reason you couldn't twist it in to suppressing the lot, however. Let's ask @Ben. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2023 8:42:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When that list was codified, it was intended to exempt pistol shoulder stocks & "trapper" bbl rifles from being subject to the NFA. I don't see a reason you couldn't twist it in to suppressing the lot, however. Let's ask @Ben. Exactly. Thanks for the quick reply. Edit: No further questions from me |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2023 8:49:08 PM EDT
[#3]
Pics of lovely C&R firearm that's exempt from the NFA?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2023 8:51:21 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pics of lovely C&R firearm that's exempt from the NFA? None here, sadly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2023 9:54:48 PM EDT
[#5]
Kiln guns are suppressed and "non-firearms".
I don't personally know of an integrally suppressed weapon that was exempted from the NFA. I think true fixed integrally suppressed firearms are somewhat newer. Earlier suppressor designs usually has maintenance that precluded integrally use afaik (wipe replacement, packing/baffling grommets/etc.). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2023 10:27:53 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Kiln guns are suppressed and "non-firearms". I don't personally know of an integrally suppressed weapon that was exempted from the NFA. I think true fixed integrally suppressed firearms are somewhat newer. Earlier suppressor designs usually has maintenance that precluded integrally use afaik (wipe replacement, packing/baffling grommets/etc.). I think OP's point was that BATFE left the barn door wide open when they announced this list of firearms are exempt from the NFA. What they MEANT was these firearms were exempt from SBR, SBS, or AOW registration & tax. What they fucking SAID was they're exempt from the NFA. So game on. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2023 10:42:34 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think OP's point was that BATFE left the barn door wide open when they announced this list of firearms are exempt from the NFA. What they MEANT was these firearms were exempt from SBR, SBS, or AOW registration & tax. What they fucking SAID was they're exempt from the NFA. So game on. My guess is "as-is, in their original configuration". Otherwise, what would keep someone from modifying one to be automatic? Doing so would create a "new" firearm. Probably...depending on the agent, date, lunar phase, and general feeling at that particular point. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/13/2023 11:27:47 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My guess is "as-is, in their original configuration". Otherwise, what would keep someone from modifying one to be automatic? Doing so would create a "new" firearm. Probably...depending on the agent, date, lunar phase, and general feeling at that particular point. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think OP's point was that BATFE left the barn door wide open when they announced this list of firearms are exempt from the NFA. What they MEANT was these firearms were exempt from SBR, SBS, or AOW registration & tax. What they fucking SAID was they're exempt from the NFA. So game on. My guess is "as-is, in their original configuration". Otherwise, what would keep someone from modifying one to be automatic? Doing so would create a "new" firearm. Probably...depending on the agent, date, lunar phase, and general feeling at that particular point. I know. But we have friendly Supremes at the moment, let us make hay while the sun shines. A lot of em listed are lever guns. But the semi-autos - mostly Lugers w/ shoulder stocks - would make fine conversions to integrally suppressed submachineguns feedling from 32 rnd repro snail drums. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2023 7:46:19 AM EDT
[#9]
Just to stir the pot....
How about an integrally suppressed muzzle loader? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2023 10:26:10 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: When that list was codified, it was intended to exempt pistol shoulder stocks & "trapper" bbl rifles from being subject to the NFA. I don't see a reason you couldn't twist it in to suppressing the lot, however. Let's ask @Ben. The reason that the Maxim .50 was exempt, is because it is an integral suppressor on a weapon that is not a firearm at all under the NFA or GCA. In you integrally suppressed anything that utilized fixed ammunition, the suppressor would not be exempt. That is the short answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2023 10:27:38 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I think OP's point was that BATFE left the barn door wide open when they announced this list of firearms are exempt from the NFA. What they MEANT was these firearms were exempt from SBR, SBS, or AOW registration & tax. What they fucking SAID was they're exempt from the NFA. So game on. The problem is that while the host weapon for the suppressor is exempt, even when integrated the suppressor is considered its own firearm. This is why the MP5SD requires two stamps. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2023 11:08:04 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The problem is that while the host weapon for the suppressor is exempt, even when integrated the suppressor is considered its own firearm. This is why the MP5SD requires two stamps. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I think OP's point was that BATFE left the barn door wide open when they announced this list of firearms are exempt from the NFA. What they MEANT was these firearms were exempt from SBR, SBS, or AOW registration & tax. What they fucking SAID was they're exempt from the NFA. So game on. The problem is that while the host weapon for the suppressor is exempt, even when integrated the suppressor is considered its own firearm. This is why the MP5SD requires two stamps. Fair point. What about the sear? Can we haz full-auto stocked Lugers? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2023 11:13:41 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fair point. What about the sear? Can we haz full-auto stocked Lugers? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I think OP's point was that BATFE left the barn door wide open when they announced this list of firearms are exempt from the NFA. What they MEANT was these firearms were exempt from SBR, SBS, or AOW registration & tax. What they fucking SAID was they're exempt from the NFA. So game on. The problem is that while the host weapon for the suppressor is exempt, even when integrated the suppressor is considered its own firearm. This is why the MP5SD requires two stamps. Fair point. What about the sear? Can we haz full-auto stocked Lugers? I am not a luger guy, but I'd guess no- not without a specific determination that the specific luger sear was exempt. I'd recommend being patient. Things are changing...soon. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2023 12:26:45 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The reason that the Maxim .50 was exempt, is because it is an integral suppressor on a weapon that is not a firearm at all under the NFA or GCA. In you integrally suppressed anything that utilized fixed ammunition, the suppressor would not be exempt. That is the short answer. The first statement I agree with completely. There are also weapons that utilized fixed ammunition and are removed from NFA and GCA provisions (Section IIIA); GCA only applies to transfers, or am I missing something there? That opens up Section III if so. Stated in another reply, the MP5SD is not exempt from anything; too new and ammo's readily available. I understand where you're coming from with the fixed ammunition criteria, but that's already touched on as criteria for exemptions; which may or may not apply. "Readily available" ammunition is also another exemption criteria. What about integrally suppressing 25 RF? 41 RF? I would love the long answer. I don't mean to pick on you here. Thank you for the great input so far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2023 2:53:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The first statement I agree with completely. There are also weapons that utilized fixed ammunition and are removed from NFA and GCA provisions (Section IIIA); GCA only applies to transfers, or am I missing something there? That opens up Section III if so. Stated in another reply, the MP5SD is not exempt from anything; too new and ammo's readily available. I understand where you're coming from with the fixed ammunition criteria, but that's already touched on as criteria for exemptions; which may or may not apply. "Readily available" ammunition is also another exemption criteria. What about integrally suppressing 25 RF? 41 RF? I would love the long answer. I don't mean to pick on you here. Thank you for the great input so far. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The reason that the Maxim .50 was exempt, is because it is an integral suppressor on a weapon that is not a firearm at all under the NFA or GCA. In you integrally suppressed anything that utilized fixed ammunition, the suppressor would not be exempt. That is the short answer. The first statement I agree with completely. There are also weapons that utilized fixed ammunition and are removed from NFA and GCA provisions (Section IIIA); GCA only applies to transfers, or am I missing something there? That opens up Section III if so. Stated in another reply, the MP5SD is not exempt from anything; too new and ammo's readily available. I understand where you're coming from with the fixed ammunition criteria, but that's already touched on as criteria for exemptions; which may or may not apply. "Readily available" ammunition is also another exemption criteria. What about integrally suppressing 25 RF? 41 RF? I would love the long answer. I don't mean to pick on you here. Thank you for the great input so far. The firearms being listed as exempt have been determined by BATFE to be collectible antiques which are not likely to be used as a weapon. Having been through the ATF's fuck fuck games many times, I can tell you that if you integrally suppressed one of the listed weapons or types of weapons, ATF would make one of two, if not both, claims: The firearms exempted by ATF is exempt from regulation by ATF decision, but remains a firearm by the statutory definition of the law, and thus the suppressor attached to it is an unregistered suppressor, OR by modifying the firearm from its original collectible state, you have rendered it no long eligible for collectible status. I am not saying I agree with the above, but that is what I suspect they'll argue. Also keep in mind that most exemptions are only exempt because ATF decided they are. Kinda like pistol braces. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/14/2023 7:45:31 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The firearms being listed as exempt have been determined by BATFE to be collectible antiques which are not likely to be used as a weapon. Having been through the ATF's fuck fuck games many times, I can tell you that if you integrally suppressed one of the listed weapons or types of weapons, ATF would make one of two, if not both, claims: The firearms exempted by ATF is exempt from regulation by ATF decision, but remains a firearm by the statutory definition of the law, and thus the suppressor attached to it is an unregistered suppressor, OR by modifying the firearm from its original collectible state, you have rendered it no long eligible for collectible status. I am not saying I agree with the above, but that is what I suspect they'll argue. Also keep in mind that most exemptions are only exempt because ATF decided they are. Kinda like pistol braces. I totally understand. I'd love to read something from the horse's mouth. Hard to find anything on it. I get the C&R requirements. The requirements outside that standard remain somewhat grey for me. Thanks for the quick word. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2023 9:13:35 PM EDT
[#17]
The ATF has a big giant book of all of the C&R stuff that they will send you if you ask nicely. It is a few years old. Part of C&R is supposed to be derived value for being unique. A friend of mine used to own Lightening Link #1 with all of the documentation and court stuff from the fight with the ATF. He submitted and tried to get the ATF to list it as C&R and they refused. In 13 years every NFA machine gun will be 50 years old and should be C&R and transfer to and from a C&R license holder directly. I am probably too old to see that but things will be interesting then.
|
|
|
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.
