Armory Sponsor
Posted: 3/26/2015 10:28:10 AM EDT
|
Wow ok so I've been dealing with this for over a year now. so .. I picked up a mg on f3 out of state and during transfer to my dealer the idiot (Dealer) I bought from could not properly copy the f3 he kept changing wording for the description and length so finally after 4 tries and 6 months the reviewer agreed he is an idiot and approved it to my dealer anyway. Now after a 9 month pending transfer to me it goes into problem because of this turd trying to change the overall length. So now the reviewer says had to send it to the BOSS for approval of wording change!? Of description. I ask the reviewer ok so now how long are we talking ha ha says the reviewer he does them in batches.... So who knows !
Anyone ever deal with this bologna any idea it could take to get approved taken care of?   
Thanks |
|
Mine went into problem status and it was delayed about 3 weeks, back in 2013. The examiners wanted pictures of the gun for their records I guess.
Sucks you're having this problem. I really don't understand why people don't copy the forms directly...it's not that hard. In fact, it's downright easy. No thinking about what to put in each box. The dealer you bought it from sounds like a complete moron. |
|
When did BATFE become such sticklers for everything matching? I have seen old forms that had different lengths for barrel and OAL, and also machinegun or submachinegun and they were all approved.
Plus sometimes the gun changes configurations if the new owner changes stocks or barrels. I realize that when these changes are made the BATFE is supposed to be notified and the NFRTR updated, but that means the new form could legally not match what was on the previous form. |
| Yea it's been in problem for 4 weeks already and they don't need anything from us just seems like waiting for nothing . My biggest beef is its a m16 so basically you could put any length barrel on u wanted. They must be having a hard time grasping this concept... |
|
Quoted:
When did BATFE become such sticklers for everything matching? I have seen old forms that had different lengths for barrel and OAL, and also machinegun or submachinegun and they were all approved. Plus sometimes the gun changes configurations if the new owner changes stocks or barrels. I realize that when these changes are made the BATFE is supposed to be notified and the NFRTR updated, but that means the new form could legally not match what was on the previous form. Quoted:
When did BATFE become such sticklers for everything matching? I have seen old forms that had different lengths for barrel and OAL, and also machinegun or submachinegun and they were all approved. Plus sometimes the gun changes configurations if the new owner changes stocks or barrels. I realize that when these changes are made the BATFE is supposed to be notified and the NFRTR updated, but that means the new form could legally not match what was on the previous form. It happened when people started taking advantage of the system by turning macs into m60s and putting old serial numbers on new receivers. Someone always has to fuck with stuff and make things more difficult for the masses. As I understand it, they basically want a visual reference of machine gun transfers now so they can go back and compare if necessary. Quoted:
Yea it's been in problem for 4 weeks already and they don't need anything from us just seems like waiting for nothing . My biggest beef is its a m16 so basically you could put any length barrel on u wanted. They must be having a hard time grasping this concept... Yeah, you can, but it's the permanent change thing. If it wasn't copied exactly, the assumption now is that a permanent change to the weapon has been made or there's something else potentially suspicious going on. I think it's bs too, but it's another example of whats been said for a while now: copy the form exactly. |
|
Quoted:
If it makes you feel better, I have a can that's been in problem status for 8 months. Not the same monetary equivalent, or even close, but at least you've got company.  You mean it's actually been in problem status for 8 months or the whole transfer plus problem status is now up to 8 moths? In either case, I'd call them up again and ask for an update. |
| I bought it on Veterans' Day 2013. Problem status since late July. I've calling once a week, since Kim Ramsburg won't pick up when I call. Voicemails always left, no response. Today I left a voicemail at my local ATF field office as well, to see if they can tell me anything, based off a recommendation from the NFA front desk. |
|
Yep. There's me and another guy who are in the same boat. My dealer bought out another NFA dealer's stock, as they decided to stop carrying NFA toys. Apparently there's an issue with the Form 3s, it looks like the ATF lost them, even after the dealer sent them copies back in August, they had to re-send in October. Last I heard, my dealer had the Joshua Prince office on the case as well to see if they can get the ATF to expedite the process.
Do I win a prize for the longest NFA wait time yet? Or would that just be in JAG2955 v Holder? |
|
Quoted:
When did BATFE become such sticklers for everything matching? I have seen old forms that had different lengths for barrel and OAL, and also machinegun or submachinegun and they were all approved. Plus sometimes the gun changes configurations if the new owner changes stocks or barrels. I realize that when these changes are made the BATFE is supposed to be notified and the NFRTR updated, but that means the new form could legally not match what was on the previous form. Quoted:
When did BATFE become such sticklers for everything matching? I have seen old forms that had different lengths for barrel and OAL, and also machinegun or submachinegun and they were all approved. Plus sometimes the gun changes configurations if the new owner changes stocks or barrels. I realize that when these changes are made the BATFE is supposed to be notified and the NFRTR updated, but that means the new form could legally not match what was on the previous form. In part due to what Rodman and Greenberg did. Between Sept. 22, 1993, and continuing through April 8, 2009, Rodman and Greenberg conspired with other persons to defraud the United States in its regulations of machine guns, including the 1986 machine gun ban. In order to circumvent the machine gun regulations, the defendants had the serial numbers from over 30 inexpensive, registered machine guns cut-off and welded onto completely different and more expensive models of machine guns that were illegally manufactured. The defendants would then transfer or sell the newly manufactured illegal machine guns by falsely utilizing the registration of the original machine gun. They Form 3'd everything back and forth to each other, slightly changing the descriptions, until they had "washed" old, cheap, worn out registered machine guns into new ones. The ATF approved these transfers because none of the
defendants disclosed that they were selling post-ban machine guns using pre-ban machine gun information, and the ATF relied on the false representations made in the transfer forms. http://www.willamette.edu/wucl/resources/journals/wlo/9thcir/2015/01/united-states-v.-rodman.html |
Armory Sponsor