[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ATF releases multiple Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Rules (Page 6 of 9)
|
Quoted: So AK Saiga barreled kits can be imported with being cut? Quoted: Quoted: 09P: Importing Dual-Use Frames, Receivers, or Barrels - NPRM ATF is proposing to clarify that Federal Firearms Licensees may lawfully import firearm barrels and frames/receivers capable of being used on both sporting and non-sporting firearms provided that an identified sporting configuration for the barrel or frame/receiver exists at the time of importation. The proposed rule also clarifies that once lawfully imported, a dual-use barrel or frame/receiver may be incorporated into the assembly of a sporting, non-sporting, or NFA-regulated firearm, subject to compliance with all other applicable federal firearms laws. 10P: Importing Training Rounds - NPRM ATF is proposing to formally clarify in regulation that "training rounds" including inert, marking, or simulated-projectile products used for training purposes do not meet the statutory definition of "ammunition" under the Gun Control Act (GCA) and are therefore not regulated under the GCA or the Arms Export Control Act provided the round is not for a firearm. This codification provides regulatory certainty for importers, manufacturers, and law enforcement suppliers who produce, acquire, or distribute these products. 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. No more engraving! Maybe not Saigas due to the specific sanctions on Russia. But the way the rule is described, most barrels and receivers can now be imported as long as someone somewhere makes a "sporting purpose" abortion configuration of a gun that uses that barrel or receiver. |
|
Quoted: Scott is local to me and does great work. He will be fine. He's the guy to get otherwise obscure stuff in this area for NFA in general. Especially mounts and euro stuff. Quoted: Quoted: A moment of quiet reflection for Tarheel State Firearms NFA engraving, please.  Scott is local to me and does great work. He will be fine. He's the guy to get otherwise obscure stuff in this area for NFA in general. Especially mounts and euro stuff. Scott & Terri both are amazing and a hoot to shoot the breeze with while having your firearm engraved. Sweet pups too;) |
|
Man! This is a step in the right direction! Sweet Jesus, its almost like the government possibly sees a war on US soil, and they want people to feel a little better about owning and possessing guns that they want. No NFA fees, you don't have to engrave/ gouge up you prized firearms. Oh and you can carry them to other states freely on a whim for up to a whole year with out the hassle and waiting on approval. I for one will be loving this. Looks like most of the reasons to stick to braces is gone!  ETA: Thanks Donald J Trump! |
|
Quoted: Summary found online https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/53395/685253984_1392462072928478_3481915825652-3755073.JPG that's an awesome list! |
|
Quoted: I wonder if this means 7N6 and 7.62x25mm Tokarev is coming back. And if this applies to Norinco (and resurrects Polytech) I need to put some safe queens on Gunbroker fast. Quoted: "Remove the list of former Soviet countries from which ATF currently denies applications to permanently import most firearms and ammunition, retaining only the Russian Federation" And if this applies to Norinco (and resurrects Polytech) I need to put some safe queens on Gunbroker fast. I didn't even realize there were others. That explains why some other post-Soviet country didn't pick up where Russia was forced to leave off... |
|
Quoted: that's an awesome list! Quoted: Quoted: Summary found online https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/53395/685253984_1392462072928478_3481915825652-3755073.JPG that's an awesome list! Holy smokes! |
|
Quoted: Before or after ATF decided 7n6 was armor piercing pistol ammo? Speaking of which, I'd like to see them address that bullshit. 5.45 used to be cheaper to shoot than .22LR. Quoted: Quoted: I too want 5.45 spam cans at 6 cpr again. But realistically what country can make and export 5.45 that wasn’t already able to do so? Before or after ATF decided 7n6 was armor piercing pistol ammo? Speaking of which, I'd like to see them address that bullshit. 5.45 used to be cheaper to shoot than .22LR. That shit is still completely wrong on its face by the letter of the law, since 7n6 has a lead core, and is a rifle cartridge. AP ammo restrictions have always been fucking stupid, though. |
|
Quoted: I attended the signing today and had several conversations with ATF officials about the things they were working on (very general conversations). The biggest complaint will be "it doesn't go far enough" from the pro-gun crowd. Until the proposed rules are released to see what they actually say, it seems like a step in the right direction. Some of the things like "willful violation" are long overdue from the industry side of things. The unfortunate thing is that another admin can just "undo" everything being done here. But that is exactly what this administration is doing with the Biden era rules. For lasting change, there needs to be a a court order or Congress needs to actually amend the laws. But Congress doesn't want to do its job. Prior to the bumpstock rule, the regulatory definition (found in 27 C.F.R. 478.11) of machinegun matched the statutory language which read: After the bumpstock rule, the regulation changed its language to read: In Cargill the Supreme Court affirmed the 5th Circuit's ruling which held that "The Final Rule promulgated by the ATF violates the [Administrative Procedures Act]." In other words, the bumpstock rule was invalid and that definition was no good. Based on my conversations with Rob and what he stated during the signing, this would just be cleaning up the regulation and returning the language to its prior state. But I may be wrong on that. Quoted: I attended the signing today and had several conversations with ATF officials about the things they were working on (very general conversations). The biggest complaint will be "it doesn't go far enough" from the pro-gun crowd. Until the proposed rules are released to see what they actually say, it seems like a step in the right direction. Some of the things like "willful violation" are long overdue from the industry side of things. The unfortunate thing is that another admin can just "undo" everything being done here. But that is exactly what this administration is doing with the Biden era rules. For lasting change, there needs to be a a court order or Congress needs to actually amend the laws. But Congress doesn't want to do its job. Quoted: Quoted: Soooo what is the machine gun Cargill thing about…? Need answer . . . Hopefully declaring FRTs not machine guns in the official, published rules. Prior to the bumpstock rule, the regulatory definition (found in 27 C.F.R. 478.11) of machinegun matched the statutory language which read: The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. After the bumpstock rule, the regulation changed its language to read: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions. The term “machine gun” includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. In Cargill the Supreme Court affirmed the 5th Circuit's ruling which held that "The Final Rule promulgated by the ATF violates the [Administrative Procedures Act]." In other words, the bumpstock rule was invalid and that definition was no good. Based on my conversations with Rob and what he stated during the signing, this would just be cleaning up the regulation and returning the language to its prior state. But I may be wrong on that. Able to put a bug in someone’s ear about the BS restrictions on 7n6? |
Attached File |
|
Quoted:
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/13081/HHF8NjaXsAE3ZM2_jpg-3755052.JPG  
|
|
Quoted:
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/13081/HHF8NjaXsAE3ZM2_jpg-3755052.JPG Attached File |
|
Quoted: Quoted:
https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/13081/HHF8NjaXsAE3ZM2_jpg-3755052.JPG https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/19372/IMG_2180_jpeg-3755124.JPG I knew it would eventually involve furries and kemonomimi somehow... That was quicker than expected.  I bet there's a lot of very confused (and possibly curious) people out there right now. 
|
|
Quoted: Open the MG registry and remove suppressors from the NFA? iirc the BBB that passed the House removed SBRs and suppressors from the NFA, but the ratfuck R Senators that supposedly have a majority hate giving us any scraps at all and the $0 stamps barely got through. Just another example of an R majority House passing tolerable legislation and then the R majority Senate saying 'wait wait wait, hold up; our voters might like this!!'. 
|
|
Quoted: iirc the BBB that passed the House removed SBRs and suppressors from the NFA, but the ratfuck R Senators that supposedly have a majority hate giving us any scraps at all and the $0 stamps barely got through. Just another example of an R majority House passing tolerable legislation and then the R majority Senate saying 'wait wait wait, hold up; our voters might like this!!'. The R Senators needed to bitch slap the parliamentarian. She held up the NFA changes and the Senators went along. |
|
Well, cool. If the engraving BS goes away, I’m going to SBR a couple contender frames. Attached File |
|
Quoted: I attended the signing today and had several conversations with ATF officials about the things they were working on (very general conversations). The biggest complaint will be "it doesn't go far enough" from the pro-gun crowd. Until the proposed rules are released to see what they actually say, it seems like a step in the right direction. Some of the things like "willful violation" are long overdue from the industry side of things. The unfortunate thing is that another admin can just "undo" everything being done here. But that is exactly what this administration is doing with the Biden era rules. For lasting change, there needs to be a a court order or Congress needs to actually amend the laws. But Congress doesn't want to do its job. Prior to the bumpstock rule, the regulatory definition (found in 27 C.F.R. 478.11) of machinegun matched the statutory language which read: After the bumpstock rule, the regulation changed its language to read: In Cargill the Supreme Court affirmed the 5th Circuit's ruling which held that "The Final Rule promulgated by the ATF violates the [Administrative Procedures Act]." In other words, the bumpstock rule was invalid and that definition was no good. Based on my conversations with Rob and what he stated during the signing, this would just be cleaning up the regulation and returning the language to its prior state. But I may be wrong on that. Quoted: I attended the signing today and had several conversations with ATF officials about the things they were working on (very general conversations). The biggest complaint will be "it doesn't go far enough" from the pro-gun crowd. Until the proposed rules are released to see what they actually say, it seems like a step in the right direction. Some of the things like "willful violation" are long overdue from the industry side of things. The unfortunate thing is that another admin can just "undo" everything being done here. But that is exactly what this administration is doing with the Biden era rules. For lasting change, there needs to be a a court order or Congress needs to actually amend the laws. But Congress doesn't want to do its job. Quoted: Quoted: Soooo what is the machine gun Cargill thing about…? Need answer . . . Hopefully declaring FRTs not machine guns in the official, published rules. Prior to the bumpstock rule, the regulatory definition (found in 27 C.F.R. 478.11) of machinegun matched the statutory language which read: The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. After the bumpstock rule, the regulation changed its language to read: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions. The term “machine gun” includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. In Cargill the Supreme Court affirmed the 5th Circuit's ruling which held that "The Final Rule promulgated by the ATF violates the [Administrative Procedures Act]." In other words, the bumpstock rule was invalid and that definition was no good. Based on my conversations with Rob and what he stated during the signing, this would just be cleaning up the regulation and returning the language to its prior state. But I may be wrong on that. Regarding the machine gun new ruling, I’m not what you’re call a lawyer but does “analogous motions” include FRTs? Still feels like a gray area the common guy could get hosed on. |
|
Quoted: That shit is still completely wrong on its face by the letter of the law, since 7n6 has a lead core, and is a rifle cartridge. AP ammo restrictions have always been fucking stupid, though. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I too want 5.45 spam cans at 6 cpr again. But realistically what country can make and export 5.45 that wasn’t already able to do so? Before or after ATF decided 7n6 was armor piercing pistol ammo? Speaking of which, I'd like to see them address that bullshit. 5.45 used to be cheaper to shoot than .22LR. That shit is still completely wrong on its face by the letter of the law, since 7n6 has a lead core, and is a rifle cartridge. AP ammo restrictions have always been fucking stupid, though. Agree 100% This is 7N6:  It is just lead and a soft steel jacket, just like the soft, unhardened soft steel on hundreds of other imported types of new and surplus ammo. It is in no way “armor piercing.” |
|
Quoted: iirc the BBB that passed the House removed SBRs and suppressors from the NFA, but the ratfuck R Senators that supposedly have a majority hate giving us any scraps at all and the $0 stamps barely got through. Just another example of an R majority House passing tolerable legislation and then the R majority Senate saying 'wait wait wait, hold up; our voters might like this!!'. Keeping them in the NFA kept them legal in most blue states, which have laws stating suppressors and SBRs are only legal if NFA approved. As someone that just purchased a laser engraver to offer NFA engrvaing for people in a blue state, and also just purchased a new field lens yesterday morning, you guys are welcome. Murphys law is my guiding principle. Also, because of how it's worded and the mention of variances, it sound like the form 1 for existing firearms is going to get a variance application added or attached to it in the process. Like a check box "will you be applying for a variance to use the existing markings on this reciever? Check yes or no". That would satisfy the letter of the law, regulation, and bring it into line with how this were already done for licensed manufacturers. |
|
Quoted: It figures the no engraving rule comes out this week. I just spent $120 this past weekend having 3 recievers engraved. We are a long way from this going into effect. We now have to wait 30-90 days for the comment period, then the analysis, then publishing. It'll probably be a minimum of 4-6 months. |
|
Quoted: Man! This is a step in the right direction! Sweet Jesus, its almost like the government possibly sees a war on US soil, and they want people to feel a little better about owning and possessing guns that they want. No NFA fees, you don't have to engrave/ gouge up you prized firearms. Oh and you can carry them to other states freely on a whim for up to a whole year with out the hassle and waiting on approval. I for one will be loving this. Looks like most of the reasons to stick to braces is gone! ETA: Thanks Donald J Trump! Now take SBS/SBRs off the registry and make them like other firearms and we can talk of getting rid of braces |
|
Quoted: iirc the BBB that passed the House removed SBRs and suppressors from the NFA, but the ratfuck R Senators that supposedly have a majority hate giving us any scraps at all and the $0 stamps barely got through. Just another example of an R majority House passing tolerable legislation and then the R majority Senate saying 'wait wait wait, hold up; our voters might like this!!'. Quoted: Quoted: Open the MG registry and remove suppressors from the NFA? iirc the BBB that passed the House removed SBRs and suppressors from the NFA, but the ratfuck R Senators that supposedly have a majority hate giving us any scraps at all and the $0 stamps barely got through. Just another example of an R majority House passing tolerable legislation and then the R majority Senate saying 'wait wait wait, hold up; our voters might like this!!'. If items can be removed from the NFA in a budget bill. They can be added right back in a budget bill, along with semiautos, standard cap mags, and pistols. The original drafting of the BBB was $0 for suppressors only, that’s it. $200 remained on transferring SBRs and SBSs. The $200 also remained for Form 1’ing your own SBRs, SBSs, AOWs. All those extras were added to give the voters what they wanted and what they contacted their reps to ask for. |
|
Quoted: I'd guess you'd have to do a form 4 from yourself as an individual to yourself and your wife as a couple. The spousal thing seems like it would only work on form1's if it goes hand in hand with getting rid of engraving. Otherwise you'd have to engrave both your names. And got help you if its one of the cultures where the wife has 4 names or she decides to combine 2 last names with a hyphen. The spousal thing also seems like a bigger PITA for divorces than a trust. Even if you get to keep your stuff, it still has her name on it.
|
|
Quoted: We are a long way from this going into effect. We now have to wait 30-90 days for the comment period, then the analysis, then publishing. It'll probably be a minimum of 4-6 months. Quoted: Quoted: It figures the no engraving rule comes out this week. I just spent $120 this past weekend having 3 recievers engraved. We are a long way from this going into effect. We now have to wait 30-90 days for the comment period, then the analysis, then publishing. It'll probably be a minimum of 4-6 months. You forgot all of the court cases... |
|
Quoted: I predict we will be marginally and temporarily unfucked. And then completely refucked and ass-raped when the Socialist Democrats are back in power. Rule changes can always be reversed. With the latest redistricting, it's going to be very tough for them to get meaningful power, especially in the house. |
|
Quoted: I bought a Dremel engraving pen. I did a shotgun and an AR receiver, it looks like a special needs 5 year old did it... Quoted: Quoted: It figures the no engraving rule comes out this week. I just spent $120 this past weekend having 3 recievers engraved. I bought a Dremel engraving pen. I did a shotgun and an AR receiver, it looks like a special needs 5 year old did it... I remember looking at milsurp imports at Big 5 many decades ago. Wow this rifle is beautiful…then OMFG who ruined it with this etching job?!? |
|
Quoted: Agree 100% This is 7N6: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mgm-content/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2016/10/02/5961560_01_5_45x39_tins_7n6_640.jpg It is just lead and a soft steel jacket, just like the soft, unhardened soft steel on hundreds of other imported types of new and surplus ammo. It is in no way “armor piercing.” Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I too want 5.45 spam cans at 6 cpr again. But realistically what country can make and export 5.45 that wasn’t already able to do so? Before or after ATF decided 7n6 was armor piercing pistol ammo? Speaking of which, I'd like to see them address that bullshit. 5.45 used to be cheaper to shoot than .22LR. That shit is still completely wrong on its face by the letter of the law, since 7n6 has a lead core, and is a rifle cartridge. AP ammo restrictions have always been fucking stupid, though. Agree 100% This is 7N6: https://s3.amazonaws.com/mgm-content/sites/armslist/uploads/posts/2016/10/02/5961560_01_5_45x39_tins_7n6_640.jpg It is just lead and a soft steel jacket, just like the soft, unhardened soft steel on hundreds of other imported types of new and surplus ammo. It is in no way “armor piercing.” While it definitely isn’t armor piercing, it’s not a lead core It’s mild steel, just like the jacket |
|
Quoted: I hear there's some good boating to be had along the border... lots of tragic boating accidents happen on boats. Quoted: Quoted: I wish they would change the rule so I could import a SIG 550 from a friend in Canada who is going to have to turn it in I hear there's some good boating to be had along the border... lots of tragic boating accidents happen on boats. It would be a damn shame .....hate to see someone get jammed up though |
|
Quoted: As someone that just purchased a laser engraver to offer NFA engrvaing for people in a blue state, and also just purchased a new field lens yesterday morning, you guys are welcome. Murphys law is my guiding principle. Please purchase several transferable machineguns, immediately. |
|
Quoted: Lmao we have members that still trip over themselves to comply with 922r for their form 1 sbr… Quoted: Quoted: Wait, yall were engraving your SBRs??? Man, thats wild!…. Lmao we have members that still trip over themselves to comply with 922r for their form 1 sbr… I wouldn't put those in the same bucket. 922r, in practical terms, mostly only applies to commercial importers/manufacturers even if ATF says otherwise. It's effectively impossible to enforce at the individual level. They'd have to get their hands on a gun and then somehow prove the country of origin of each part. And all of that would have to start with someone noticing or caring. The NFA engraving requirement is a much different scenario. The NFA is ATF's most important law, and enforcement of the engraving requirement is very straightforward. Is it an NFA item? Is it registered on a F1 or F4? If a F1, is it marked as required? Get that wrong, and the ATF will shoot your wife, your kid, and your dog. |
|
Quoted: Pretty stoked that I may not need to engrave my SBRs that will be approved within the next week or two. Transport rule is great too. Abolishing the ATF is the ultimate goal, but I'll take any win I can. This isnt even published for comment yet. If you get approved in the next few weeks, youll still need to get them engraved. This will probably take a few months. |
|
Didn't read every post. What happens when rules are finalized and you no longer have to engrave, but then gets changed or rolled back to having to engrave when you have a D admin? Do we need to keep track of the dates on our stamps and the dates rules were changed? I feel like it'll cause a CF if this rule gets reverted back. |
|
Quoted: This isnt even published for comment yet. If you get approved in the next few weeks, youll still need to get them engraved. This will probably take a few months. Quoted: Quoted: Pretty stoked that I may not need to engrave my SBRs that will be approved within the next week or two. Transport rule is great too. Abolishing the ATF is the ultimate goal, but I'll take any win I can. This isnt even published for comment yet. If you get approved in the next few weeks, youll still need to get them engraved. This will probably take a few months. Probably going to depend on the exact wording of the rule. Engravings only need to be done before configuring it into NFA configuration. You could technically go ahead and get your approvals. Then wait till after it takes effect to assemble it. |