Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Durkin Tactical Franklin Armory
User Panel

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/3/2010 10:16:57 PM EDT
They said that YES we can legally mount and use a Magpul AFG on the bottom accessory rail of an AR-15 type pistol.
I will scan the letter when I get back to work on Tuesday and upload it for you guys. Surprised? Me too. Excited? Hell yeah, me too.





Edit: Letter uploaded to google docs. https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0qyloA48O3XZWFjYjMwYTMtYTg1MC00NzVhLWI3NmMt­ZDRiNTMzNzdhMzUx&hl=en



 
Link Posted: 9/3/2010 10:28:24 PM EDT
[#1]
That is great! Please scan and post the letter.
Link Posted: 9/3/2010 10:31:27 PM EDT
[#2]



Quoted:


That is great! Please scan and post the letter.


Will do.



Can I "black out" my name and address and still have it be "valid"? I want to make sure people can use it as an official response but don't think I want to post my full name and address, heh.



 
Link Posted: 9/3/2010 10:37:58 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
I want to make sure people can use it as an official response

I has no bearing on anyone else, it really has no legal bearing even on the person it's addressed to.  It's advisory only.

Writing letters typically ends badly for everyone and many folks who go writing letters to BATFE I think do not understand the concept of "opening a can of worms".  I was really fearful that something bad would happen in this case.

But, it seems to have worked out for the best, at least for now.
Link Posted: 9/3/2010 11:14:21 PM EDT
[#4]
Most ATF letters I've seen online have had personal info redacted. It'll be good to see it and have some sort of yes or no answer on record from them.
Link Posted: 9/3/2010 11:43:18 PM EDT
[#5]
That's interesting news, but please everyone remember that this does not equal a legal defense for everyone.
The ATF is clear that their opinion letters apply only to the person they are addressed to and that they are not legally binding.

A great example of a widely mis-interpreted ATF letter is the one regarding cane tips on pistol buffer tubes.  The ATF told the original question-asker that they thought it was OK in his very specific instance that had absolutely nothing at all to do with putting the buffer tube in his shoulder.  The original question asked if it was ok to add the cane-tip to keep the gun from sliding around in his safe.  The reply from the ATF said that was OK for that purpose, but because they didn't reference the original question in their reply it appeared that the ATF gave blanket permission to add a cane-tip for any reason.  The result is that all kinds of people think that they now have permission to make what are essentially unregistered SBRs.

Think of it this way...  If you have a friend who's a cop and he tells you that he thinks it's OK to punch someone for calling you a bad name, do you think a judge is going to take that excuse seriously when you are facing charges for assault.  Of course not.  A cop can't give you permission to do something that a legislating body has declared to be illegal.  He's just a guy who should know better but unfortunately gave you bad advice.

The ATF is primarily a law enforcement agency.  Law enforcement agencies do not make or interpret laws.  They just enforce them.  Politicians make laws and courts interpret them.
A letter from the ATF might be a useful thing to wave at a jury for sympathy, but it does not bear the weight of law.

Frankly, I think the ATF needs to stop handing out opinions on laws that were enacted by Congress.  It's not their business to do so and it gives the false impression that they have the authority to establish law.  The AG and some federal judges need to smack them and remind them what the proper role of an enforcement agency is.

[EDIT]  I should add that I know the ATF also has a regulatory role.   I agree that it is appropriate for them to provide clarification regarding some regulations that are codified in the CFR (which includes some NFA stuff to a certain extent).  I do not agree that it is appropriate for them to provide provide interpretations of the U.S.C as if they have the authority to determine what is enforceable under the U.S.C. and what isn't. [/EDIT]
Link Posted: 9/4/2010 2:06:23 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
A great example of a widely mis-interpreted ATF letter is the one regarding cane tips on pistol buffer tubes.  The ATF told the original question-asker that they thought it was OK in his very specific instance that had absolutely nothing at all to do with putting the buffer tube in his shoulder.  The original question asked if it was ok to add the cane-tip to keep the gun from sliding around in his safe.  The reply from the ATF said that was OK for that purpose, but because they didn't reference the original question in their reply it appeared that the ATF gave blanket permission to add a cane-tip for any reason.  The result is that all kinds of people think that they now have permission to make what are essentially unregistered SBRs.

Wait... what??? So we can't put a cane tip on the buffer tube?
Link Posted: 9/4/2010 4:14:00 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Wait... what??? So we can't put a cane tip on the buffer tube?

Not to hijack this thread too badly...,
but no, you can not put a cane-tip on the receiver extension of a pistol if your intent is to use it as an aid in shouldering the firearm. (unless your barrel length is >= 16 inches, in which case it would cease being a pistol and become a rifle, and that's OK.)
The person who asked the original question asked if it was ok for him to put it on there because he stores his pistol in such a manner that it rests on the buffer tube and it tends to slide around.  He specifically described the cane-tip he wanted use as something that would not be an aid in shouldering the firearm.  (he's a member on this board and he posted his original question to the ATF here)
The ATF reply to him was that it was OK for him to add a cane-tip to keep the pistol from sliding around.  They did not give blanket permission to add cane-tips for the purpose of shouldering the firearm.

I brought it up originally because it's a good example of how these letters only apply to the addressee and should not be used as permission letters by anyone who wants to do something similar.  The ATF does not view these individual letters in the same way they view their official "Open Letters" or their regulatory "Rulings".

Link Posted: 9/4/2010 8:13:26 AM EDT
[#8]
I specifically asked if it could be used while firing... So the question was posed with a very specific purpose. I'm saddened to hear that it holds very little legal weight. Makes me want to not do it just so I don't end up "that guy who is made an example of."
Link Posted: 9/4/2010 8:18:56 AM EDT
[#9]



Quoted:


I specifically asked if it could be used while firing... So the question was posed with a very specific purpose. I'm saddened to hear that it holds very little legal weight. Makes me want to not do it just so I don't end up "that guy who is made an example of."


Why do anything then?  Just sell all your guns to me so that you can have peace of mind and not worry about being an example.



 
Link Posted: 9/4/2010 8:52:35 AM EDT
[#10]



Quoted:





Quoted:

I specifically asked if it could be used while firing... So the question was posed with a very specific purpose. I'm saddened to hear that it holds very little legal weight. Makes me want to not do it just so I don't end up "that guy who is made an example of."


Why do anything then?  Just sell all your guns to me so that you can have peace of mind and not worry about being an example.

 


Because I know everything else I have is completely legal. Your reasoning is flawed. You're comparing my other guns that have very specific laws in place saying that they are legal to a gun I want to build with an item that has no specific legal ruling on it, just a letter from the ATF saying it's ok and laws that seem to imply that it would not be legal.



 
Link Posted: 9/4/2010 8:57:50 AM EDT
[#11]
tag



As for the cane tip, I don't see how it's any different than a foam cover that covers the end of the buffer tube.




 
Link Posted: 9/4/2010 9:33:38 AM EDT
[#12]
I understand guys want to write the ATF concerning these different add ons. I think it has been established that what ever letter they send only applies to the individual it was sent to, and then may or may not be upheld by the court.
But again, if you keep sending letters trying to figure out some loop hole to turn your pistol into an SBR without paying for it, I believe the BATF will eventually ban the AR Pistol and stick with the SBR.
I understand some states will not allow SBR's but will allow an AR Pistol. Well guess what, if the Pistols are banned, you won't have either.
Be happy you can own an AR Pistol.
Dave
Link Posted: 9/4/2010 9:39:12 AM EDT
[#13]
Awesome.

Remember, it is perfectly legal for a Government Agent to lie to you.
Link Posted: 9/4/2010 3:06:46 PM EDT
[#14]
Please don't be to discouraged.  Please post the letter when you get it scanned.  It' is up to each one of use to do what we think is legal.  I would like to see the letter before I decide what to do.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 1:51:18 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
They did not give blanket permission to add cane-tips for the purpose of shouldering the firearm.

Sorry to keep hijacking the thread but this left me wondering. Presuming you have no cane tip (or even foam) is it illegal to shoulder an AR pistol?
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 2:28:01 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They did not give blanket permission to add cane-tips for the purpose of shouldering the firearm.

Sorry to keep hijacking the thread but this left me wondering. Presuming you have no cane tip (or even foam) is it illegal to shoulder an AR pistol?


Was it designed or intended to be fired from the shoulder?  If not, it's still a pistol. It's just being fired unconventionally.  Like shooting from the hip.  If you put a stock on it, then it's a SBR and needs a tax stamp or it's illegal.

IANAL.. YMMV.. etc..
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 4:34:50 PM EDT
[#17]
Please don't write the BATF and ask.
Link Posted: 9/5/2010 10:05:58 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Please don't write the BATF and ask.


+100000000000000000

LAST thing we need is someone asking, "Can I shoulder my pistol?"
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 9:05:08 PM EDT
[#19]
Oh, cant wait to see this one.

Would be epic if true, I LOVE my AFG on my m4rgery. Would make handling my PLR-16 oh so much easier.
Link Posted: 9/6/2010 10:28:56 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Please don't write the BATF and ask.


+100000000000000000

LAST thing we need is someone asking, "Can I shoulder my pistol?"


THIS!!!! DO NOT EVEN THINK ABOUT WRITING A LETTER LIKE THAT! Those of us in non-SBR states would be soooo pissed if they outlawed AR pistols
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:14:08 AM EDT
[#21]
Letter added as promised.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:41:19 AM EDT
[#22]
that's terribly interesting.

the title itself ('foregrip') should forbid it...

maybe they're applying the pistol-grip standard, e.g. conspicuously protrudes ???
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:49:21 AM EDT
[#23]
Not sure. As you can see I asked a lot of other questions as well. Ones that were likely already answered but I wanted to get the answer to them for myself... The idea of a pistol is very interesting and cool to me but I wanted to get rid of any questions I had. I'm thankful to the ATF for responding but am saddened that it doesn't hold really any weight in court other than "Hey, I asked if I could do this before doing it and was told I could," which would, I suppose, get some sympathy as you were making a conscious effort to stay within the law... But it sounds like it wouldn't get you out of trouble.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:21:28 AM EDT
[#24]
I found it interesting that the ATF stated "based on the GCA, manufacturers' marks of identification are not required on firearms that are produced by individuals for personal use".
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:33:03 AM EDT
[#25]
Can somebody repost this somewhere I dont have to register to see it.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:44:41 AM EDT
[#26]
Wow, thats great news. Thanks OP!
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 6:45:32 AM EDT
[#27]



Quoted:


Can somebody repost this somewhere I dont have to register to see it.


I thought I made it possible for anyone on the internet to view without registration...



But either way, registering takes about 10 seconds...



 
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 7:56:41 AM EDT
[#28]
That was a definitive answer.



OP:  I think the 'manufacture without a serial number' part refers to you machining your own receiver since receivers count as guns and will have serial numbers if you buy them from a manufacturer/dealer.

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 8:23:30 AM EDT
[#29]
Thanks for scanning the letter.  A definite "yes" was provided by the BATFE.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 9:32:51 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
That was a definitive answer.

OP:  I think the 'manufacture without a serial number' part refers to you machining your own receiver since receivers count as guns and will have serial numbers if you buy them from a manufacturer/dealer.


"Manufacturers marks of identification" could also be your name and city for an SBR. Could it not? I didn't see anything about serial numbers.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 1:27:29 PM EDT
[#31]




Quoted:



Quoted:

That was a definitive answer.



OP: I think the 'manufacture without a serial number' part refers to you machining your own receiver since receivers count as guns and will have serial numbers if you buy them from a manufacturer/dealer.





"Manufacturers marks of identification" could also be your name and city for an SBR. Could it not? I didn't see anything about serial numbers.


Maybe rollmarks?

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 2:24:49 PM EDT
[#32]
I'm a registered user and I can't see the letter either??

ETA...found it.  love it!
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 2:29:37 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
They said that YES we can legally mount and use a Magpul AFG on the bottom accessory rail of an AR-15 type pistol.

I will scan the letter when I get back to work on Tuesday and upload it for you guys. Surprised? Me too. Excited? Hell yeah, me too.

Edit: Letter uploaded to google docs. https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0qyloA48O3XZWFjYjMwYTMtYTg1MC00NzVhLWI3NmMt­ZDRiNTMzNzdhMzUx&hl=en
 


Do you mind if we copy and repost your redacted copy? A lot of people would be interested to see ATF's opinion on several of your questions on the ATF letterhead.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 2:38:28 PM EDT
[#34]
I have read the letter twice.  Is it just me or does it clearly state that we do NOT need to submit a Form 1 and get an approval if we want to build a machine gun?
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 3:15:00 PM EDT
[#35]



Quoted:



Quoted:

They said that YES we can legally mount and use a Magpul AFG on the bottom accessory rail of an AR-15 type pistol.



I will scan the letter when I get back to work on Tuesday and upload it for you guys. Surprised? Me too. Excited? Hell yeah, me too.



Edit: Letter uploaded to google docs. https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B0qyloA48O3XZWFjYjMwYTMtYTg1MC00NzVhLWI3NmMt­ZDRiNTMzNzdhMzUx&hl=en

 




Do you mind if we copy and repost your redacted copy? A lot of people would be interested to see ATF's opinion on several of your questions on the ATF letterhead.



Feel free to distribute it as you wish.



 
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 3:38:57 PM EDT
[#36]




Quoted:

I have read the letter twice. Is it just me or does it clearly state that we do NOT need to submit a Form 1 and get an approval if we want to build a machine gun?




That is exactly what it says.  However, if you get caught with an unregistered machine gun, you get to go to PMITA prison.  Don't ask me to explain how that does not contradict 'shall not infringe' though because I couldn't tell you.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 4:39:25 PM EDT
[#37]
Here it is but I did not have to do anything to see it.





In regards to the MG part.  Guys, quite trying to find a loop hole to make a MG.  NOBODY, unless they are an SOT with approved letter of demo, can make a machine gun and it has been that way since May 19, 1986.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 4:51:32 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:

Quoted:
I have read the letter twice. Is it just me or does it clearly state that we do NOT need to submit a Form 1 and get an approval if we want to build a machine gun?


That is exactly what it says.  However, if you get caught with an unregistered machine gun, you get to go to PMITA prison.  Don't ask me to explain how that does not contradict 'shall not infringe' though because I couldn't tell you.


I believe the Hughes Amendment would make it illegal for a civilian who is not a licensed manufacturer to make a machine gun regardless of what form you submit.  With that in mind the language of the letter on that point is pretty clear.  You can make other NFA stuff with a form 1, but not a machine gun.

And going back to the point I made on page 1....  These letters are advice only, they are not law, they do not provide a legal defense, and they can be easily misinterpreted.

They did give a pretty clear yes on the question about the AFG, however I wish that they had explained why an AFG is OK but a VFG isn't.  The offical ATF position regarding VFGs on handguns seems to pretty clearly apply to the AFG as well, so this is kind of confusing.  I'm certainly not going to ask though.

Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:06:38 PM EDT
[#39]





Quoted:





Quoted:
Quoted:


I have read the letter twice. Is it just me or does it clearly state that we do NOT need to submit a Form 1 and get an approval if we want to build a machine gun?






That is exactly what it says.  However, if you get caught with an unregistered machine gun, you get to go to PMITA prison.  Don't ask me to explain how that does not contradict 'shall not infringe' though because I couldn't tell you.






I believe the Hughes Amendment would make it illegal for a civilian who is not a licensed manufacturer to make a machine gun regardless of what form you submit.  With that in mind the language of the letter on that point is pretty clear.  You can make other NFA stuff with a form 1, but not a machine gun.





And going back to the point I made on page 1....  These letters are advice only, they are not law, they do not provide a legal defense, and they can be easily misinterpreted.





They did give a pretty clear yes on the question about the AFG, however I wish that they had explained why an AFG is OK but a VFG isn't.  The offical ATF position regarding VFGs on handguns seems to pretty clearly apply to the AFG as well, so this is kind of confusing.  I'm certainly not going to ask though.








I guess because not all pistols are handguns?  Somebody ought to ask if VFGs on pistols is ok.
 
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:23:13 PM EDT
[#40]
This is fantastic news. This should mean that handstops are okay on a rail as well. What would be the difference between an angled foregrip versus a vertical foregrip, I wonder. Where is that language that makes the distiinction? Up until now, the whole argument was whether or not the AFG would be consider a forward grip - so is that it? The AFG is not considered a forward grip by the ATF no strings attached? That's what that letter says to me.

I can't help but wonder what the letter isn't saying, though...
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 5:23:15 PM EDT
[#41]
That is correct. Handguns are not necessarily pistols and vice-versa... It confuses the hell out of me, though.
Link Posted: 9/7/2010 7:03:20 PM EDT
[#42]
I'll happily stick to my hand guards and TLR2
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 12:26:08 PM EDT
[#43]
" they " read this board
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 1:39:00 PM EDT
[#44]
It's an interesting letter.  It's the first I've seen where the ATF is making a distinction between pistols and handguns although they still try to confuse the definitions of the two by implying that pistols are regulated under the GCA.  They are in the federal codes when it comes to:

(1) The interstate or foreign commerce in firearms and ammunition;
(2) The licensing of manufacturers and importers of firearms and ammunition, collectors of firearms, and dealers in firearms;
(3) The conduct of business or activity by licensees;
(4) The importation of firearms and ammunition;
(5) The records and reports required of licensees;
(6) Relief from disabilities under this part;
(7) Exempt interstate and foreign commerce in firearms and ammunition; and
(8) Restrictions on armor piercing ammunition.

However, the making of pistols is not under the purview of the GCA; that is the realm of the NFA Title 27, 479.  What does that mean?  Well, Spencer didn't quite get it right in his third paragraph.  No biggie, maybe we are helping him separate the definitions.  Perhaps they've never really thought about it.  It's possible.

In any case, this is the first implied recognition that pistols are not necessarily  designed to be held and fired by the use of a single hand as defined in the GCA handgun definition.  By allowing something that is designed as a "grip" by it's manufacturer, the ATF has somewhat capitulated that two grips can exist on pistols and that they aren't necessarily designed to be "held and fired" by the use of a single hand per the NFA.

It's either that or the Magpul grip is not really a grip and more akin to this kludge (which isn't a grip either).  

 

Link Posted: 9/9/2010 2:48:45 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:

Quoted:
I have read the letter twice. Is it just me or does it clearly state that we do NOT need to submit a Form 1 and get an approval if we want to build a machine gun?


That is exactly what it says.  However, if you get caught with an unregistered machine gun, you get to go to PMITA prison.  Don't ask me to explain how that does not contradict 'shall not infringe' though because I couldn't tell you.


I believe the Hughes Amendment would make it illegal for a civilian who is not a licensed manufacturer to make a machine gun regardless of what form you submit.  With that in mind the language of the letter on that point is pretty clear.  You can make other NFA stuff with a form 1, but not a machine gun.

And going back to the point I made on page 1....  These letters are advice only, they are not law, they do not provide a legal defense, and they can be easily misinterpreted.

They did give a pretty clear yes on the question about the AFG, however I wish that they had explained why an AFG is OK but a VFG isn't.  The official ATF position regarding VFGs on handguns seems to pretty clearly apply to the AFG as well, so this is kind of confusing.  I'm certainly not going to ask though.



My statement about machine guns was cynical and intended to emphasize how easily it is to misinterpret the letters, as per you statement above.  I certainly hope no one would think that you can really build a post Hugh's machine gun based upon a letter about forward grips.  I will be more careful with my satire in the future.

Link Posted: 9/9/2010 3:08:16 PM EDT
[#46]
Not really all that confusing.  He states you can make a firearm as defined in the GCA.

(3) The term “firearm” means
(A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive;
(B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon;
(C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or
(D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

Machineguns are excluded from that definition in the GCA by the following:

(23) The term “machinegun” has the meaning given such term in section 5845(b) of the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. 5845 (b)).


Additionally, he adds:

"Individuals desiring to manufacture a firearm subject to NFA provisions (machineguns excepted) must first submit and secure approval of an ATF Form 1, Application to Make and Register a Firearm, and pay the applicable $200 making tax.


Perhaps a third read would be the charm?






Link Posted: 9/9/2010 3:28:26 PM EDT
[#47]

    My PERSONAL opinion is that all these "letters" mean BUPKIS!

         Govt. "agents" can't pass Laws according to MY copy of the Constitution   , and someday the Courts
   will bear this out.

  Meanwhile , thanks for muddying the waters still again......................

Link Posted: 9/9/2010 3:59:55 PM EDT
[#48]
Your copy of the Constitution would allow you to possess nuclear arms.  It is not limited to just firearms. More power to you, I suppose.  

arm 2
(ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.

I don't see how this muddied the waters.  Before, there had been no admission that pistols allowed for two hand firing.  Now, it appears one hurdle has been cleared, although vaguely.  

Link Posted: 9/9/2010 6:48:59 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Your copy of the Constitution would allow you to possess nuclear arms.  It is not limited to just firearms. More power to you, I suppose.  

arm 2
(ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.

I don't see how this muddied the waters.  Before, there had been no admission that pistols allowed for two hand firing.  Now, it appears one hurdle has been cleared, although vaguely.  



Originally, arms and ordnance are in two different categories.
Link Posted: 9/9/2010 7:44:53 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your copy of the Constitution would allow you to possess nuclear arms.  It is not limited to just firearms. More power to you, I suppose.  

arm 2
(ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.

I don't see how this muddied the waters.  Before, there had been no admission that pistols allowed for two hand firing.  Now, it appears one hurdle has been cleared, although vaguely.  



Originally, arms and ordnance are in two different categories.


THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CONSTITUTION SAYS!  

But I respect your "interpretation".  Or at least agents of the government's interpretation.

Aren't we allowed to own destructive devices, though, even though your interpretation wouldn't include them?

State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P. 2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980).
   "We are not unmindful that there is current controversy over the wisdom of a right to bear arms, and that the original motivations for such a provision might not seem compelling if debated as a new issue. Our task, however, in construing a constitutional provision is to respect the principles given the status of constitutional guarantees and limitations by the drafters; it is not to abandon these principles when this fits the needs of the moment."

   "Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militiamen or private citizens."

http://www.guncite.com/journals/hal-lin.html
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! 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.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top