User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:13:42 PM EDT
 Attached FileLooks like ATF rejected every form 1 they had for silencers. I believe they are using the form 1 as intent and any parts you purchased for it would be considered Silencer parts and require a form 4 transfer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:16:36 PM EDT
[#1]
How do they know you have or will buy parts?
My Form1 was approved on 12/30 after 14 days. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:17:37 PM EDT
[#2]
hmmm interesting so a block of steel or metal pipe IS a silencer just from INTENT?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:18:18 PM EDT
[#3]
Uh.. Yikes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:19:45 PM EDT
[#4]
Was someone stupid enough to list the brand name of a "solvent trap" kit in the description? Yeah, I could see how that would do it. I'd be curious to see if they rejected one with just the individual / trust's info in the description, with no mention of what kind of parts are being used.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:19:51 PM EDT
[#5]
sucks, already got my 3 stamps though....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:20:39 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do they know you have or will buy parts? My Form1 was approved on 12/30 after 14 days. The federal definition for a silencer is vague enough that they can say basically anything is a silencer part because you “redesigned it” to be a silencer part. So a rough titanium tube could be called a silencer part because you were redesigning it to be a silencer tube. A chunk of aluminum could be a silencer part because you were redesigning it to be baffles. Not saying I agree with this. It’s the sort of BS we get when things are given vague definition. It gives the ATF the ability to do whatever they want because the fed definition says anything “designed or redesigned” to be a silencer is a silencer. Parts too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:20:44 PM EDT
[#7]
Can we get more context please?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:20:46 PM EDT
[#8]
Well, they’re getting their marching orders from the same people as every other over reaching Fed agency. This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:21:08 PM EDT
[#9]
So every lower you want to form 1 is actually an SBR by intent as well?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:22:22 PM EDT
[#10]
Where are you seeing "mass rejection"? How could they already know what you have in your possession? You can file a form 1 with no parts at all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:23:01 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: sucks, already got my 3 stamps though.... ATF says they are revoking stamp approvals of customers of diversified machine. Stamp approvals basically mean jack shit. They are going after form 1 suppressor building. Just my opinion, but I could see this spreading out to a lot more than just DM customers or new form 1 applicants. They want form 1 suppressor building to be a thing of the past. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:23:36 PM EDT
[#12]
I wonder if they are cross referencing names with seized customer lists.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:23:53 PM EDT
[#13]
Is this one of the "ATF is raiding everyone tomorrow" threads?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:24:01 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: hmmm interesting so a block of steel or metal pipe IS a silencer just from INTENT? Don't forget that a shoe string can be an unregistered machine machinegun. If they say so... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:24:17 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So every lower you want to form 1 is actually an SBR by intent as well? Not right now. The definition of a firearm and SBR isn’t vague enough for them to play games like this. But just wait until they change the definitions someday lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:24:33 PM EDT
[#16]
Melt your iron pipes for your sink lest you get hauled in for constructive intent.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:27:02 PM EDT
[#17]
Guys, people are getting denials who have bought zero parts. They aren’t on any customer list. Even guys who have only built cans from raw materials with their lathe... they are now getting denied too.
The ATF is simply shutting down the entire form 1 suppressor building thing by saying everyfuckingthing is a silencer part if you intended to use it to build a silencer or part. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:28:18 PM EDT
[#18]
Ohtheresafuckingsurprise.gif
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:29:04 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can we get more context please? Lots of people on FB posting that they got this disapproval reason, weither or not they bought any parts  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:29:49 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: ATF says they are revoking stamp approvals of customers of diversified machine. Stamp approvals basically mean jack shit. They are going after form 1 suppressor building. Just my opinion, but I could see this spreading out to a lot more than just DM customers or new form 1 applicants. They want form 1 suppressor building to be a thing of the past. No they are not |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:30:08 PM EDT
[#21]
Oops.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:31:07 PM EDT
[#22]
How do they know where you are in the process when you file?
I've also had an approved form 1 before building any can. How does the ATF know that you're not going to just machine the baffles once you have a tax stamp in hand? This has me a bit confused. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:32:44 PM EDT
[#23]
It no longer matters anymore. .125 drill bit go wirrrrrrrrrrrr!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:33:36 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How do they know where you are in the process when you file? I've also had an approved form 1 before building any can. How does the ATF know that you're not going to just machine the baffles once you have a tax stamp in hand? This has me a bit confused. In ATF land the parts to make a silencer are already silencers and you can't build a silencer out of silencer(s) because its already a silencer(s), and your silencer(s) are also illegal because you didn't have a form 1 to build the silencer(s) you're using to build your silencer. Baffle? Silencer. Thread adapter? Silencer. Spacer? Silencer. Metal tube? Double silencer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:34:16 PM EDT
[#25]
If you buy a silencer as a whole manufactured unit do you still get a rejection?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:34:22 PM EDT
[#26]
Could it be as simple as stating in section H or I "Applicant does not possess parts prior to approval" or something like that? I've never done a F1 before.
Also - I wonder if this is a potential warning shot for WTFever is coming down the pipe with pistol braces / SBRs.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:35:09 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No they are not Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: ATF says they are revoking stamp approvals of customers of diversified machine. Stamp approvals basically mean jack shit. They are going after form 1 suppressor building. Just my opinion, but I could see this spreading out to a lot more than just DM customers or new form 1 applicants. They want form 1 suppressor building to be a thing of the past. No they are not You must not be up to date on what is going on with DM and their customers. https://blog.princelaw.com/2022/02/28/update-on-diversified-machine-products/ ATF says they are removing the suppressors of DM customers from the NFRTR. The approved form 1 means nothing at that point as the suppressor is no longer legally registered to the person who had an approved form 1 for it. If they are removing form 1 cans from the registry, denying new applicants(including people who haven't bought any sort of parts at all).. there is no reason to think it stops here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:35:31 PM EDT
[#28]
FATF
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:37:41 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In ATF land the parts to make a silencer are already silencers and you can't build a silencer out of silencer(s) because its already a silencer(s), and your silencer(s) are also illegal because you didn't have a form 1 to build the silencer(s) you're using to build your silencer. Baffle? Silencer. Thread adapter? Silencer. Spacer? Silencer. Metal tube? Double silencer. Atf has always considered completed baffles to be a silencer in and of themselves. Which is why a 07 mfg has to repair a silencer for you. You just cant buy a spare baffle to replace on that has been Damaged. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:37:43 PM EDT
[#30]
"...intended..." oh boy.
I tell ya what ATF, go fuck yourselves. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:38:28 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You must not be up to date on what is going on with DM and their customers. https://blog.princelaw.com/2022/02/28/update-on-diversified-machine-products/ ATF says they are removing the suppressors of DM customers from the NFRTR. The approved form 1 means nothing at that point as the suppressor is no longer legally registered to the person who had an approved form 1 for it. If they are removing form 1 cans from the registry, denying new applicants.. there is no reason to think it stops here. I'm not saying that guy is wrong or that his information is incorrect, but that's an attorney who passed the bar in 2020. How much experience can he possibly have at this level? Most attorneys at that point in their career are handling traffic tickets or working 200 hour weeks in corporate law and learning how to professionally drink. Given how ATF opinion letters have historically proven completely useless and he can't even get them to put the name of their counsel on it, how useful is that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:40:09 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It no longer matters anymore. .125 drill bit go wirrrrrrrrrrrr! In the future the prisons will be filled with enemy of the state. .125 Drill bit guys will be in general population with freedom truckers and moms for school board accountability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:40:40 PM EDT
[#33]
The ATF...
"Yo dawg, I heard you like constructive intent. So we are coming up with our own scheme where we constructively intend to declare that everyone who submitted a Form 1 is now under constructive intent of owning a suppressor. You dog you just got ATF pimped" This is like some weird inception shit where it is constructive intent within constructive intent... Broadcasting their next move loud and clear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:40:43 PM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:42:54 PM EDT
[#35]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:43:09 PM EDT
[#36]
FBATFE.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:43:17 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm not saying that guy is wrong or that his information is incorrect, but that's an attorney who passed the bar in 2020. How much experience can he possibly have at this level? Most attorneys at that point in their career are handling traffic tickets or working 200 hour weeks in corporate law and learning how to professionally drink. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: You must not be up to date on what is going on with DM and their customers. https://blog.princelaw.com/2022/02/28/update-on-diversified-machine-products/ ATF says they are removing the suppressors of DM customers from the NFRTR. The approved form 1 means nothing at that point as the suppressor is no longer legally registered to the person who had an approved form 1 for it. If they are removing form 1 cans from the registry, denying new applicants.. there is no reason to think it stops here. I'm not saying that guy is wrong or that his information is incorrect, but that's an attorney who passed the bar in 2020. How much experience can he possibly have at this level? Most attorneys at that point in their career are handling traffic tickets or working 200 hour weeks in corporate law and learning how to professionally drink. Prince Law is a respected firm when it comes to stuff like this. That is just one lawyer on their team, they've been doing this as a firm for a long time. Their post was just a quick source for the info. None of this is anything new to people who got the letter from the ATF in late December and have followed the situation as it developed. At first the ATF said "if you have a form 1 you are good to go".. then they started getting dodgy. Then they quietly updated the DM website seizure page to say cans would get removed from the NFRTR (link here), then they started telling people different things almost weekly. But at this point, "your can is contraband and will be removed from the NFRTR, you must turn it in or destroy it" has been the common message for about a month now. Today kicked off the mass disapprovals of new form 1's to make suppressors. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:43:34 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You must not be up to date on what is going on with DM and their customers. https://blog.princelaw.com/2022/02/28/update-on-diversified-machine-products/ ATF says they are removing the suppressors of DM customers from the NFRTR. The approved form 1 means nothing at that point as the suppressor is no longer legally registered to the person who had an approved form 1 for it. If they are removing form 1 cans from the registry, denying new applicants(including people who haven't bought any sort of parts at all).. there is no reason to think it stops here. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: ATF says they are revoking stamp approvals of customers of diversified machine. Stamp approvals basically mean jack shit. They are going after form 1 suppressor building. Just my opinion, but I could see this spreading out to a lot more than just DM customers or new form 1 applicants. They want form 1 suppressor building to be a thing of the past. No they are not You must not be up to date on what is going on with DM and their customers. https://blog.princelaw.com/2022/02/28/update-on-diversified-machine-products/ ATF says they are removing the suppressors of DM customers from the NFRTR. The approved form 1 means nothing at that point as the suppressor is no longer legally registered to the person who had an approved form 1 for it. If they are removing form 1 cans from the registry, denying new applicants(including people who haven't bought any sort of parts at all).. there is no reason to think it stops here. That's some bullshit. I could see them saying 'register now or show us the unused parts' to DM customers without a stamp, but denying/ removing registration from those who already paid, were approved, and manufactured their silencer? Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:43:44 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: In ATF land the parts to make a silencer are already silencers and you can't build a silencer out of silencer(s) because its already a silencer(s), and your silencer(s) are also illegal because you didn't have a form 1 to build the silencer(s) you're using to build your silencer. Baffle? Silencer. Thread adapter? Silencer. Spacer? Silencer. Metal tube? Double silencer.  YoDawg Blank by FredMan, on Flickr
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:45:00 PM EDT
[#40]
This isnt just one guy that fucked up...over the past couple hours there have been numerous people reporting disapprovals on several different Form 1 boards and FB pages. Not just guys that have kits- everything. Guys reporting they machine everything from scratch or havent bought a single thing got denied. Several have called the ATF and gotten nowhere. Not good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:45:43 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The federal definition for a silencer is vague enough that they can say basically anything is a silencer part because you “redesigned it” to be a silencer part. So a rough titanium tube could be called a silencer part because you were redesigning it to be a silencer tube. A chunk of aluminum could be a silencer part because you were redesigning it to be baffles. Not saying I agree with this. It’s the sort of BS we get when things are given vague definition. It gives the ATF the ability to do whatever they want because the fed definition says anything “designed or redesigned” to be a silencer is a silencer. Parts too. Wouldn't it be a thing that vague laws aren't enforceable? AKA: give me 15-minutes in each of the Supreme Court members garages and I'll find "silencer parts" in all of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:46:11 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's some bullshit. I could see them saying 'register now or show us the unused parts' to DM customers without a stamp, but denying/ removing registration from those who already paid, were approved, and manufactured their silencer? Kharn The idea of retroactive removal of approvals seems to invite plenty of legal arguments itself. Has that ever happened? Or rather has that ever happened successfully when it wasn't an actual clerical error that the approval happened or something similar? There are a handful of people out there building f1 cans from scratch but the vast, vast majority of f1 cans have to be solvent traps. Hell, the fact that they are even tossing that about implies a whole level of intent to something that previously was just the realm of being ostensibly about a tax... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:47:16 PM EDT
[#43]
So when do they start raiding homes.
Things could get spicy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:48:44 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The idea of retroactive removal of approvals seems to invite plenty of legal arguments itself. Has that ever happened? Or rather has that ever happened successfully when it wasn't an actual clerical error that the approval happened or something similar? There are a handful of people out there building f1 cans from scratch but the vast, vast majority of f1 cans have to be solvent traps. Hell, the fact that they are even tossing that about implies a whole level of intent to something that previously was just the realm of being ostensibly about a tax... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That's some bullshit. I could see them saying 'register now or show us the unused parts' to DM customers without a stamp, but denying/ removing registration from those who already paid, were approved, and manufactured their silencer? Kharn The idea of retroactive removal of approvals seems to invite plenty of legal arguments itself. Has that ever happened? Or rather has that ever happened successfully when it wasn't an actual clerical error that the approval happened or something similar? There are a handful of people out there building f1 cans from scratch but the vast, vast majority of f1 cans have to be solvent traps. Hell, the fact that they are even tossing that about implies a whole level of intent to something that previously was just the realm of being ostensibly about a tax... I don't know if it has ever happened but I can think of things they've approved of that they turned around and then disapproved of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:48:52 PM EDT
[#45]
2 form 1s just denied, with the same stupid reason at the end.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:49:47 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lots of people on FB posting that they got this disapproval reason, weither or not they bought any parts https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/49519/E164F1E8-94E3-49DA-A200-40914CBC522A_jpe-2296712.JPG A Catch 22! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:50:02 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So every lower you want to form 1 is actually an SBR by intent as well? Don't give them any ideas... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:50:31 PM EDT
[#48]
I'm just making a guess here, but I wonder if this has more to do with 80% lowers than SBRs or pistol braces.
Seems like it's going after guys who make their own firearm-related parts. In their minds, it would be "logical" to apply this to 80% lowers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:50:52 PM EDT
[#49]
I’m a cop. I don’t have a pending form 1 but I’ve thought about it.
How do I arrest myself? I want to do it right the first time. Do I handcuff myself to my bed and email ask the experts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:51:20 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I don't know if it has ever happened but I can think of things they've approved of that they turned around and then disapproved of them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's some bullshit. I could see them saying 'register now or show us the unused parts' to DM customers without a stamp, but denying/ removing registration from those who already paid, were approved, and manufactured their silencer? Kharn The idea of retroactive removal of approvals seems to invite plenty of legal arguments itself. Has that ever happened? Or rather has that ever happened successfully when it wasn't an actual clerical error that the approval happened or something similar? There are a handful of people out there building f1 cans from scratch but the vast, vast majority of f1 cans have to be solvent traps. Hell, the fact that they are even tossing that about implies a whole level of intent to something that previously was just the realm of being ostensibly about a tax... I don't know if it has ever happened but I can think of things they've approved of that they turned around and then disapproved of them. Yeah its happened before. I know several years back one or two people submitted an eform 1 to build a machinegun and were approved (now the site won't even let you apply). ATF eventually saw they screwed up and it was a battle, but ATF won. A member on here got approved to build a form 1 frag grenade. I think he has battled the ATF a few times because they keep saying he can't have it anymore or some BS. I believe he still has it. |
|
|
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.
Attached File