Hey, somebody stated that there was supposedly a letter out there. I just answered in the affirmative, that yes there was an approval letter at one point a couple years back and I have a copy as proof vs. internet hearsay. I make no affirmation of current legality as stated it is quite possible that the letter was modified or rescinded, etc.
However, I also don’t fully subscribe to the idea that tech branch letters unless directly addressed to the end user are completely worthless either.
The industry at large highly relies upon tech branch letters to provide guidance for legality and they provide direction as to the ATFs thinking at least at that time. It is not practical for every end user to write the ATF for their own letter, nor do I suspect that ATF wants to write thousands of replies to the exact same question.
Take the KNS letter for a lightning link protector. The 10+ year old ATF letter stating their protector is legal to use isn’t addressed to any individual end user. Yet virtually everyone relies upon a letter not addressed to them to provide for legality.
I see no addition legal safe harbor for the end users just because the original tech letter was written to a “manufacturer” telling them it was legal to sell at that time vs. relying upon a letter written to an individual covering the exact same situation.
Folks rely upon tech branch determination letters not specifically addressed to them all the time for slidefires, braces, shockwave’s, digital triggers, and the myriad of other products that slide right up to the line of legality without tipping over. There are individuals here who are building “semi-auto” M60s utilizing legal determination letters written to guy who has been dead for years, lots of folks who make their own personal bump stocks, etc.
Could you be prosecuted relying somebody else’s letter….sure. Could you be prosecuted even if you have your own letter….I believe you could be. Just because the ATF wrote you a determination letter years ago doesn’t mean that they didn’t change their mind and decide to make an example out of you if you garnered their attention somehow.
That said, in my opinion, the odds of being prosecuted are reduced if you hold a tech branch letter be it addressed to your or somebody else (manufacturer or individual). Is it better if its addressed to you personally…sure. However, I don’t think there are a whole lot of district attorney’s out there that would waste their time and resources to take a case to a jury with a tech branch stating the behavior is legal unless there are some other mitigating circumstances.
Honestly, if you want a completely risk free hobby than collecting and shooting NFA firearms probably isn’t for you. There are a host of federal and state laws to contend with not to mention a venerable booby trap of potential historical and technical pedigree issues for the guns themselves.
Issues such as receivers that have been replaced post 86, receivers that may have been “over-repaired”, receivers that have been illegally remarked (HK93 to HK53), sears that have become unmarried from their host, sears married to drilled receivers post 86 (like AKs and FNCs), Stenling conversions, anybody who owns a suppressor with a replacement tube that isn’t original or a historical repair no longer considered kosher, anybody who owns an extra dead-air wipe, etc.. If the ATF wanted to be an asshole they could probably find some technical violation for a lot of NFA owners out there.
If you want to feel extra safe write the ATF a letter asking for your own DIAS in 901 ruling. The challenge here is that in my personal experience the ATF doesn’t answer the vast majority of the letter written to the tech branch. I think I have personally written the tech branch about 4 or 5 times over the past 15+ years and they have never once responded back to me including my own personal LE901 determination question letter.