Armory Sponsor
Posted: 3/26/2026 3:30:08 PM EDT
|
IIRC there was something about common abbreviations in the engraving requirements. They let you use postal abbreviationsfor the state, for example. What about names? Can you use "Joe" for Joseph, "Bill" for William, etc? Or do you have to use your full name as it appears on the form 1 and your birth certificate, etc? Just looking for ways to reduce the size of the engraving without running afoul of the rules. Has anyone had a form 1 rejected for using a common "nickname" style abbreviation on the engraving? |
Joined:
Jul 2024
Posts:
69
EE: 0% (0)
WI, USA
|
You aren't going to get a form 1 rejected for engraving. There is no place you have to tell the ATF what you are engraving. You just engrave your name or trust name, city and state. If you are getting to the point ATF is inspecting your engravings, you have much bigger problems. |
|
Originally Posted By VaFish: You aren't going to get a form 1 rejected for engraving. There is no place you have to tell the ATF what you are engraving. You just engrave your name or trust name, city and state. If you are getting to the point ATF is inspecting your engravings, you have much bigger problems. This. But for the love of common sense, since the ATF looking to ruin your day and infringe your rights is not at all interested in giving you the benefit of the doubt, JUST MATCH YOUR ENGRAVING TO YOUR FORM 1 EXACTLY. It is not difficult. Just match it exactly. Do we really need a Chris Rock sketch for gun owners?  Chris Rock PSA - How Not To Get Your A** Kicked By The Police |
|
Originally Posted By VaFish: You aren't going to get a form 1 rejected for engraving. There is no place you have to tell the ATF what you are engraving. You just engrave your name or trust name, city and state. If you are getting to the point ATF is inspecting your engravings, you have much bigger problems. Actually there is. Box 4h on Form 1 says: Additional description (Indicate required maker’s markings to include maker’s name as registered, city and state as each will appear on firearm) That said, I agree with the last sentence. |
When I was a child, I caught a fleeting glimpse
Joined:
Dec 2000
Posts:
10586
EE: 100% (204)
USA
|
Your problem will be defending your choice of abbreviation in court. There’s a body of law or regulations surrounding abbreviation of state names. No so much for Joe. And let’s take William. It is Bill? Wm? And Richard. Dick? Rich? See what I’m getting at? |
ProTip: Never pick a fight with a tree planter. He swings a hoedad for 9 hours a day, carries 30-40 pounds of seedlings on his back, and has 12-14 friends just like him hiding out on the other side of the junk butt pile. They will fuck your shit up.
|
Looks like the engraving requirement is going away. I wouldn't bother, but you do you. This is just my take on it and I am not a lawyer. This assumes of course you're registering a lower or something that already has a serial number and required markings. From here: Clarifying Rules 17P: Allowing Makers to Adopt Certain Markings for National Firearms Act - NPRM ATF is proposing to allow individuals who make National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms by altering existing firearms to adopt markings already applied by the original manufacturer rather than applying additional, redundant markings. Because the original importer and manufacturer’s serial number and markings are already required by statute and regulation, this proposal eliminates a duplicative regulatory requirement while ensuring NFA marking requirements are satisfied. ATF has previously accommodated this practice through individual variances; this proposed rule codifies that accommodation into regulation to provide consistent, clear guidance across the industry. Edit: This is a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). It's not law yet, but hopefully will be soon. |
|
Originally Posted By Stan_TheGunNut: 17P: Allowing Makers to Adopt Certain Markings for National Firearms Act - NPRM ATF is proposing to allow individuals who make National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms by altering existing firearms to adopt markings already applied by the original manufacturer rather than applying additional, redundant markings. Because the original importer and manufacturer’s serial number and markings are already required by statute and regulation, this proposal eliminates a duplicative regulatory requirement while ensuring NFA marking requirements are satisfied. ATF has previously accommodated this practice through individual variances; this proposed rule codifies that accommodation into regulation to provide consistent, clear guidance across the industry. I saw that the other day. However, I don’t see that as doing away with most of the markings a Form 1 maker would need to apply. As noted in the quote, a Title I firearm requires certain marking to be applied by the manufacturer/importer. The NFA regs require a “maker” to require certain markings as well. Not all manufacturer markings are redundant with the maker markings. So if I have a Colt rifle with manufacturer markings of “Hartford, CT” and it Form 1 it into an SBR and I make it in Hartford, CT, then I shouldn’t need to mark it as such again. As that marking is redundant. But if I “make” it in Arfcom City, AZ, that is not redundant and I would need to add those markings. Similarly, since my name is not “Colt’s Patent Firearms”, I probably still need to add that as well. Because the NFA regs still say that needs to be added by the maker. This rule doesn’t appear to change the scope of those regs. It just clarifies some things that people have been doing all along. Like not stamping the same s/n somewhere else on the gun. Maybe I’m wrong. I’d be ok with that too. |
|
Well, let’s just see what the proposed rule is when it’s published. The point of the markings are for traceability. The engraved markings already on the gun, including the manufacturer’s name, location, and serial number are also listed on the Form 1, and can be used to trace it in the NFA registry. Adding your name and location does not add a thing. Besides, factory SBRs don’t have any additional info, and selling a SBR to someone else doesn’t require remarking, so it’s absolutely useless. The question is what is required by the actual NFA and other laws passed by Congress, and what is just implementation stuff that the ATF made up? |
|
Originally Posted By willi3d: Well, let’s just see what the proposed rule is when it’s published. The point of the markings are for traceability. The engraved markings already on the gun, including the manufacturer’s name, location, and serial number are also listed on the Form 1, and can be used to trace it in the NFA registry. Adding your name and location does not add a thing. Besides, factory SBRs don’t have any additional info, and selling a SBR to someone else doesn’t require remarking, so it’s absolutely useless. The question is what is required by the actual NFA and other laws passed by Congress, and what is just implementation stuff that the ATF made up? This is why I think additional markings are stupid and redundant. The redundancy is the point of eliminating additional markings in my opinion. The fact of the matter is I'm not "making" anything. I'm simply registering an item that has already been manufactured so I can put a short barrel on it legally. I don't consider two push pins making anything. But I don't get to make the rules. Edited for an afterthought. |
|
Originally Posted By cardboardkiller: 1. Get a trust 2. Name the trust your first and last initials or something like “1 Trust” 3. ???? 4.Profit I knew i want to engrave another SBS. I got a new trust from one of the online NFA places. I Think i was about $60 on sale. I picked a short name that didnt have my name in it incase i ever want to sell and made the engraving easy. It is actually 4 letter roman numerals so it is short and generic like "XXVI Trust". If I ever care to I can transfer it to my primary trust since it now is free. The best would be no engraving. But if it has to be engraved I like something ambiguous and short. Wish my other SBRs didnt have my name on them. I do have a few lowers that were done under the pistol brace that arnt engraved. But most are engraved with a long trust name that includes my last name. |
|
Originally Posted By Stan_TheGunNut: This is why I think additional markings are stupid and redundant. The redundancy is the point of eliminating additional markings in my opinion. The fact of the matter is I'm not "making" anything. I'm simply registering an item that has already been manufactured so I can put a short barrel on it legally. I don't consider two push pins making anything. But I don't get to make the rules. Edited for an afterthought. I will tell you the same thing everyone tells me when i point out the obvious. "Dont try to use logic when dealing with government law"  In all honesty dont even try to think about what makes sense. Just make sure you are doing the right thing at the right time. It constantly changes. I just had a SBS engraved. Apparently ATF used to accept engravings on the barrel of SBS but now no one knows if that is OK. How does that make sense? My "pistol brace" SBS dont need to be engraved. But that isnt really clear on the paper work anywhere except some note about "pending laws" or something. When i transfer them from personal to into my trust they will get issued new paperwork that doesnt have any of that "pending" stuff on there. So how then does anyone know they dont need engraving? No logic. |
Armory Sponsor