[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ATF releases multiple Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Rules (Page 7 of 9)
|
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: 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. LOL he just did one for me on Friday. So do we not need to do this anymore? |
|
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. Why? Is there a 3 month time limit? I have an approved form 1 for a suppressor thats like 2 years old and I still never got around to completing it. |
|
Quoted: 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. I highly doubt it. The engraving is part of the "making" process. The item is only made once. Once the rule removing the engraving requirement is finalized, F1 items can be made without the additional engraving, and if a new rule in the future requires engraving again, that rule would only apply to F1 items made after the effective date of that rule. Making this a CF is better for us because it makes enforcement harder. In a future scenario where the engraving requirement comes back, ATF would have to work around exceptions for the brace amnesty forms and however many forms get processed while engraving isn't required. |
|
I have a Form 1 pending. I figure its 30 days out. Its going to live its very short and brutish life in a cruiser. I may still engrave it to make it easily identifiable but now its MY choice and not a royal edict. It will also make my decision to buy a Vang Comp Shockwave easier. Thats an expensive gun to ruin with engraving. I still want machine guns available and an end to the NFA. I kind of am of the opinion that FRT technology is going to continue to improve and be available on more platforms. I want a FRT in a MP5 SBR, Die Hard style. |
|
Quoted: 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: 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. Good point. This potential change in the import regulations could be huge. It could even reverse - in realistic terms - most of the 1989 assault weapons import ban. No: complete FAMAS rifles in semi-auto won’t be imported, as just one example. But the separate importation of semiautomatic FAMAS receivers, barrels, etc. will soon be possible if the rule goes into effect. True: it will need to be re-assembled here in the USA. Plus, someone somewhere needs to make a bolt-action FAMAS (or something “sporting,” whatever that’s supposed to mean). Then there are lame EU export laws to consider . . . But the FAMAS is only ONE example of a gun effectively banned back in 1989. There are certainly others.  |
|
Quoted: Good point. This potential change in the import regulations could be huge. It could even reverse - in realistic terms - most of the 1989 assault weapons import ban. No: complete FAMAS rifles in semi-auto won’t be imported, as just one example. But the separate importation of semiautomatic FAMAS receivers, barrels, etc. will soon be possible if the rule goes into effect. True: it will need to be re-assembled here in the USA. Plus, someone somewhere needs to make a bolt-action FAMAS (or something “sporting,” whatever that’s supposed to mean). Then there are lame EU export laws to consider . . . But the FAMAS is only ONE example of a gun effectively banned back in 1989. There are certainly others. Quoted: Quoted: 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. Good point. This potential change in the import regulations could be huge. It could even reverse - in realistic terms - most of the 1989 assault weapons import ban. No: complete FAMAS rifles in semi-auto won’t be imported, as just one example. But the separate importation of semiautomatic FAMAS receivers, barrels, etc. will soon be possible if the rule goes into effect. True: it will need to be re-assembled here in the USA. Plus, someone somewhere needs to make a bolt-action FAMAS (or something “sporting,” whatever that’s supposed to mean). Then there are lame EU export laws to consider . . . But the FAMAS is only ONE example of a gun effectively banned back in 1989. There are certainly others. A boring but simple example would be the M16A1 kits. Right now, those barrels get cut. Under the new rule, those kits could (probably) be imported again because people make "sporting" configurations of ARs. Buy a real surplus A1 kit, buy a stripped H&R lower, throw your lower down the driveway to match, and build. For any other gun, I would think a company like Century would have to develop one SKU of a sporting configuration of that gun, and even if they don't build many, if any, in that configuration, the existence of that SKU would enable the importation of intact kits for that gun. |
|
Quoted: I thought the same thing when someone else posted about CLEO notification. https://media1.giphy.com/media/GDnomdqpSHlIs/200.webp?cid=8dc8958c8dpoi1sk2waun7iubz8xjph55nzx1pja0gikdola&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g Quoted: Quoted: Wait, yall were engraving your SBRs??? Man, thats wild! . I have more than 10 SBRs, not one of them is engraved. |
|
Quoted: form 4 form 1 needs engraving, well before this new rule Quoted: Quoted: I have more than 10 SBRs, not one of them is engraved. form 4 form 1 needs engraving, well before this new rule Yet magically they still work and I still have the stamps. Your definition of the word need is a lot different than mine. |
|
Quoted: When does the new rule for not having to wait after submitting form 5320.20 go into effect? Stole this from page 3. Attached File So it will probably be a little while. |
|
Quoted: A boring but simple example would be the M16A1 kits. Right now, those barrels get cut. Under the new rule, those kits could (probably) be imported again because people make "sporting" configurations of ARs. Buy a real surplus A1 kit, buy a stripped H&R lower, throw your lower down the driveway to match, and build. For any other gun, I would think a company like Century would have to develop one SKU of a sporting configuration of that gun, and even if they don't build many, if any, in that configuration, the existence of that SKU would enable the importation of intact kits for that gun. Not any more. Barrel ban went quietly away mid last year. Receiver ban is still in effect for non-sporting. But us FAL fans have been very fortunate in the past few months with some beautiful Belgian FAL kits with only the receiver destroyed. |
|
So since this link says signed April 29th does this mean when my Form 1 is hopefully approved next month I don't need to engrave it? 10.5" factory AR simply SBRing. Is there going to be further clarification or am I good to go? https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/atf-launches-new-era-reform |
|
Quoted: So since this link says signed April 29th does this mean when my Form 1 is hopefully approved next month I don't need to engrave it? 10.5" factory AR simply SBRing. Is there going to be further clarification or am I good to go? https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/atf-launches-new-era-reform It'll be a few months probably. We also need the full text of the rules to really know what they will do exactly. They are not available yet, once published you should be able to find them here: https://www.federalregister.gov/agencies/alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-bureau#documents And even then, these are just proposed rules. They may be changed a bit before they get finalized. |
|
Quoted: For the people saying a few months, I'm too lazy to go back and look, but it seems like when the biden ATF did their rule process with the comment period and shit for the braces and the point system, that took longer than a few months. They also made a ton of changes to the proposed rule. I'm pretty sure that was one of the big reasons it got thrown out as well. If they have a short comment period and make relatively few changes it should move a lot faster than that clusterfuck. |
|
Quoted: LOL. You have to know that there's not anybody else in WV that will know what you're trying to say. They'll probably call ICE to report you. Quoted: Quoted: I like that word, forbearance. I am going to try and add it to my daily vocabulary. LOL. You have to know that there's not anybody else in WV that will know what you're trying to say. They'll probably call ICE to report you. 
|
|
Quoted: They also made a ton of changes to the proposed rule. I'm pretty sure that was one of the big reasons it got thrown out as well. If they have a short comment period and make relatively few changes it should move a lot faster than that clusterfuck. Quoted: Quoted: For the people saying a few months, I'm too lazy to go back and look, but it seems like when the biden ATF did their rule process with the comment period and shit for the braces and the point system, that took longer than a few months. They also made a ton of changes to the proposed rule. I'm pretty sure that was one of the big reasons it got thrown out as well. If they have a short comment period and make relatively few changes it should move a lot faster than that clusterfuck. I won't claim to be an expert or remember all the details, but I seem to remember them not only making changes, but the whole thing was a well publicized mess with a huge volume of opposing comments from grassroots people plus the opposition of the usual 2A lobby groups. And it was just one rule. In this case, there are 34 individual rules, and I'm assuming each one will have its own comment period and review. The anti-gun side doesn't have nearly as many grassroots types, and most of those don't understand the content of these rules. The brace rule and the receiver rule were very important to us, we knew exactly what those meant, and a lot of people got active. Changes to things like F1 engraving or whatever are pretty abstract concepts to them, and they likely don't care enough to understand it and formulate an opinion. Hell... active gun enthusiasts probably don't know what a lot of these rules do. I've been around the block a time or two, and I still don't know I understand the impact of things like the Soviet nations rule. |
|
Quoted: I won't claim to be an expert or remember all the details, but I seem to remember them not only making changes, but the whole thing was a well publicized mess with a huge volume of opposing comments from grassroots people plus the opposition of the usual 2A lobby groups. And it was just one rule. In this case, there are 34 individual rules, and I'm assuming each one will have its own comment period and review. The anti-gun side doesn't have nearly as many grassroots types, and most of those don't understand the content of these rules. The brace rule and the receiver rule were very important to us, we knew exactly what those meant, and a lot of people got active. Changes to things like F1 engraving or whatever are pretty abstract concepts to them, and they likely don't care enough to understand it and formulate an opinion. Hell... active gun enthusiasts probably don't know what a lot of these rules do. I've been around the block a time or two, and I still don't know I understand the impact of things like the Soviet nations rule. I had many of the same thoughts. I doubt we'll see many comments on the vast majority of these new rules and one would think that will make things move along a good bit faster. |
|
Quoted: Yet magically they still work and I still have the stamps. Your definition of the word need is a lot different than mine. Prepare your butthole if the feds find you out with one. I don't get the trauma about engraving a firearm. Whatever, it's not some more small letters in it. I'm going to add more scratches than the material removed for some letters. |
|
Quoted: Prepare your butthole if the feds find you out with one. I don't get the trauma about engraving a firearm. Whatever, it's not some more small letters in it. I'm going to add more scratches than the material removed for some letters. The requirement to do it is retarded. And also gay. |
|
Quoted: 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. Quoted: 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. Thinking the form may get revised? |
|
Quoted: Prepare your butthole if the feds find you out with one. I don't get the trauma about engraving a firearm. Whatever, it's not some more small letters in it. I'm going to add more scratches than the material removed for some letters. Quoted: Quoted: Yet magically they still work and I still have the stamps. Your definition of the word need is a lot different than mine. Prepare your butthole if the feds find you out with one. I don't get the trauma about engraving a firearm. Whatever, it's not some more small letters in it. I'm going to add more scratches than the material removed for some letters. If you don't have someone local or a two thousand dollar laser it can be a pain in the ass to get done. Shipping a firearm is no longer an easy thing to do these days either. At least not as easy as it should be. |
|
Quoted: Prepare your butthole if the feds find you out with one. I don't get the trauma about engraving a firearm. Whatever, it's not some more small letters in it. I'm going to add more scratches than the material removed for some letters. I don’t get the fearful willingness to comply and threaten other to do so as well but you do you. |
|
Quoted: A boring but simple example would be the M16A1 kits. Right now, those barrels get cut. Under the new rule, those kits could (probably) be imported again because people make "sporting" configurations of ARs. Buy a real surplus A1 kit, buy a stripped H&R lower, throw your lower down the driveway to match, and build. For any other gun, I would think a company like Century would have to develop one SKU of a sporting configuration of that gun, and even if they don't build many, if any, in that configuration, the existence of that SKU would enable the importation of intact kits for that gun. |
|
Quoted: If you don't have someone local or a two thousand dollar laser it can be a pain in the ass to get done. Shipping a firearm is no longer an easy thing to do these days either. At least not as easy as it should be. |
|
Quoted: Thinking the form may get revised? Quoted: Quoted: 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. Thinking the form may get revised? It’s possible. 4(h) on the actual form has never really matched up with eForms. It’s need fixed for a while. I expect unless it’s specifically addressed. Anyone submitting anything after yesterday would just say “they didn’t configure it into a NFA configuration” till after the date it takes effect. That’s certainly what I’d do lol You could have submitted/been approved years ago and never configured it in NFA configuration. If your first time was after it takes effect, engraving wouldn’t be required. |
| If they are reducing the number of regulations they enforce then why do they need a couple hundred more agents? This is why I'm suspicious. I've worked for .gov including regulatory agencies for a good while and requests for new FTE's are always supported by additional regulatory "opportunities," and increase in revenue sources. ATF is saying they are reducing authority and reducing revenue stream but asking for more manpower. Never in the history of ever has this happened in .gov sector. |
|
Quoted: If they are reducing the number of regulations they enforce then why do they need a couple hundred more agents? Imagine there was only one gun law that said "Felons can't possess firearms." You could still keep a lot of ATF agents busy tracking down felons who possessed firearms, despite there only being that one law. |
|
Quoted: Why? Is there a 3 month time limit? I have an approved form 1 for a suppressor thats like 2 years old and I still never got around to completing it. Quoted: 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. Why? Is there a 3 month time limit? I have an approved form 1 for a suppressor thats like 2 years old and I still never got around to completing it. No and you can also void the F1 and request a refund of the tax. I did. |
|
For the former Soviet nations in question, I think this is the list: "Any firearm located or manufactured in Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, https://regulations.atf.gov/447-52/2022-08026#447-52-b The exceptions includes a lot of the usual suspects like Mosins, Mausers, Enfields, and Lugers. So the question would be, what might be over there that's available, not MGs, and cool to us? SVDs and SVTs seem like the low hanging fruit, but what else is there? |
|
Quoted: For the former Soviet nations in question, I think this is the list: "Any firearm located or manufactured in Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, https://regulations.atf.gov/447-52/2022-08026#447-52-b The exceptions includes a lot of the usual suspects like Mosins, Mausers, Enfields, and Lugers. So the question would be, what might be over there that's available, not MGs, and cool to us? SVDs and SVTs seem like the low hanging fruit, but what else is there? I'm betting there might be more than a few hoards of old milsurps out there. That could be fun. |
|
Quoted: If they are reducing the number of regulations they enforce then why do they need a couple hundred more agents? This is why I'm suspicious. I've worked for .gov including regulatory agencies for a good while and requests for new FTE's are always supported by additional regulatory "opportunities," and increase in revenue sources. ATF is saying they are reducing authority and reducing revenue stream but asking for more manpower. Never in the history of ever has this happened in .gov sector. |
|
Quoted: Another one of those where I question if anyone has actually been charged solely with not engraving their SBR. You didn’t hear the story about that guy shooting his SBR at some big shooting range event, in which ATF agents attended to check everyone’s gear…only to find him with no info engraving on his SBR? So the ATF agent whipped out his electopen right there and engraved it for him. That story floated around ARF for years… |
|
Quoted: I'm betting there might be more than a few hoards of old milsurps out there. That could be fun. Quoted: Quoted: For the former Soviet nations in question, I think this is the list: "Any firearm located or manufactured in Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, https://regulations.atf.gov/447-52/2022-08026#447-52-b The exceptions includes a lot of the usual suspects like Mosins, Mausers, Enfields, and Lugers. So the question would be, what might be over there that's available, not MGs, and cool to us? SVDs and SVTs seem like the low hanging fruit, but what else is there? I'm betting there might be more than a few hoards of old milsurps out there. That could be fun. Awww yeah Days of cheap mosins and sks are dancing in my head |