Armory Sponsor
OFFICIAL $0 Form 1/Form 4 Experience Thread (Page 3 of 20)
|
Efforts WILL NOT accept the name of my Sheriff. It's blank by the time I try to certify. ETA: It finally accepted his name once I redid all his info. No problems after that for almost two hours of submitting forms, once I got the hang of it. Learning curve for sure. Only errored out a couple times after that on a couple forms. 202645xxxx now. It moved 235 control numbers since I started |
Joined:
Nov 2025
Posts:
90
EE: 0% (0)
USA
|
Originally Posted By HammerTech: Started 0500 EST. 3 SBR's went to Submitted/In Process on the first try. No delays. Control numbers raised about 100 in the time it took to fill out the forms. Last number was 20264512XX. Now we wait.  Originally Posted By HammerTech: Started 0500 EST. 3 SBR's went to Submitted/In Process on the first try. No delays. Control numbers raised about 100 in the time it took to fill out the forms. Last number was 20264512XX. Now we wait. Originally Posted By chevrofreak: Originally Posted By linx310: Anyone have the lowest submission number? A friend of mine got his in within the first like five minutes and his number was like 20263316** Trying to gauge how many they got in the first day 20263325** if the numbers are at least semi accurate and sequential, that would put yesterdays submissions somewhere around 120,000... not too shabby for a "first day" |
|
Originally Posted By ScottinAZ: if the numbers are at least semi accurate and sequential, that would put yesterdays submissions somewhere around 120,000... not too shabby for a "first day" Plus the system hasn't totally crashed yet. Even some approvals and denials showing up in the first 24 hrs. |
|
Originally Posted By linx310: Yeah I feel like my rejection was a case of they don't know what they are even looking at... Originally Posted By linx310: Originally Posted By JJL0325: That is some bullshit. My approved Form 1 from October has AP5-SD as the model. No MKE in front of it Yeah I feel like my rejection was a case of they don't know what they are even looking at... That is BS for sure - I checked my seven approved MKE forms, and they all had just the model number. This is going back to the days Zenith was importing them. Once you resubmit, try emailing them to say they made a mistake (based on past approvals), it should have approved, and you resubmitted. This might get you moved up in the queue. It worked for me in the past about 50% of the time. |
|
Originally Posted By triode: That is BS for sure - I checked my seven approved MKE forms, and they all had just the model number. This is going back to the days Zenith was importing them. Once you resubmit, try emailing them to say they made a mistake (based on past approvals), it should have approved, and you resubmitted. This might get you moved up in the queue. It worked for me in the past about 50% of the time. Frankly, I don't know what to put for the model name for most ARs. They are typically marked on the lower in a generic fashion, with something like "M4 carbine", with uppers that may or may not be marked, and may have not originally shipped with the lower they are on now. It should be good enough to just describe it generically, as it's stamped on the lower, and just provide the original manufacturer's name, location, and serial number, which should uniquely identify it. |
|
Originally Posted By Glocked: Appears that approvals have already started as of at least 5-6 hours ago. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/483179/IMG_1530_jpeg-3686431.JPG Zero dollar tax stamp tracks with the BBB; probably needed a dozen Govt lawyers to figure it out. |
|
Originally Posted By scuba_steve: Frankly, I don't know what to put for the model name for most ARs. They are typically marked on the lower in a generic fashion, with something like "M4 carbine", with uppers that may or may not be marked, and may have not originally shipped with the lower they are on now. It should be good enough to just describe it generically, as it's stamped on the lower, and just provide the original manufacturer's name, location, and serial number, which should uniquely identify it. It’s easy. Since the lower on an AR is officially the serial numbered part, it doesn’t matter what’s engraved on the upper. The model name that’s on the lower is the only thing that counts. And the model name you use is exactly what’s engraved on the lower, period. It doesn’t matter what they call it commercially to sell it. For example, if you buy a Colt LE6920 and the lower is stamped “M4 Carbine”, then the model is “M4 Carbine”. |
Joined:
Nov 2025
Posts:
93
EE: 0% (0)
USA
said to hell with it and filed another one.... still getting the "error" about 4x this morning.... Control # 20264556XX range..... so yeah, about 120,000 forms yesterday....  Ive seen the Form 4 come back (2026331XXX range control number) has anyone seen any Form 1's come back yet? |
|
Originally Posted By ScottinAZ: said to hell with it and filed another one.... still getting the "error" about 4x this morning.... Control # 20264556XX range..... so yeah, about 120,000 forms yesterday.... Sure sounds like common use I did my part Attached File |
PROUD AMMOSEXUAL
Adam Calhoun: "You can’t hurt my feelings, I was born in the 80's"
Adam Calhoun: "You can’t hurt my feelings, I was born in the 80's"
Joined:
Nov 2025
Posts:
94
EE: 0% (0)
USA
|
I am getting ready to submit several Form 1s... how is everyone doing fingerprints now? (Trust) Can you send in 1 physical set of prints for multiple submissions? Or does it make more sense to get a .EFT file and submit that way? Surprisingly the eForms site seems to be running ok so far for me... probably just jinxed it lol |
Joined:
Nov 2025
Posts:
97
EE: 0% (0)
USA
|
Originally Posted By patrickwest: I am getting ready to submit several Form 1s... how is everyone doing fingerprints now? (Trust) Can you send in 1 physical set of prints for multiple submissions? Or does it make more sense to get a .EFT file and submit that way? Surprisingly the eForms site seems to be running ok so far for me... probably just jinxed it lol from what I understand, you need 2 sets of physical prints for EACH Form 1.... or you can get them converted to ETF, and use them indefinitely.... which is what I did (national gun trusts did mine in under 24 hrs with a high res scan of the cards....) mine are also a trust if that helps |
|
Originally Posted By jmar15: Got my first approved $0 back. Was submitted about an hour after system went live. 20263387XX Interesting, I submitted about half an hour earlier and am still waiting. I'm curious, did you submit a 5320.23 that you just signed electronically, or did you print it, wet sign it, and then scan it back in? I suspect the former is easier for them to approve since there can be some automated validation of the field-based values instead of requiring the evaluator to manually review the values in a scan. |
|
Originally Posted By scuba_steve: Interesting, I submitted about half an hour earlier and am still waiting. I'm curious, did you submit a 5320.23 that you just signed electronically, or did you print it, wet sign it, and then scan it back in? I suspect the former is easier for them to approve since there can be some automated validation of the field-based values instead of requiring the evaluator to manually review the values in a scan. Individual From 4. So no 5320.23 |
|
Originally Posted By Flevvy: Eform 4 trust approvals are naturally going to take longer. Hopefully they start rolling in quickly. Especially if you don't have an approval on the same trust within the last 24 months, and applied for the related exemption. I had my trust restated not long ago, so I'm going to wait for this approval before I submit another one, and then apply for the next one claiming the exemption with a letter stating the same. |
Joined:
Nov 2025
Posts:
98
EE: 0% (0)
USA
|
Originally Posted By scuba_steve: Interesting, I submitted about half an hour earlier and am still waiting. I'm curious, did you submit a 5320.23 that you just signed electronically, or did you print it, wet sign it, and then scan it back in? I suspect the former is easier for them to approve since there can be some automated validation of the field-based values instead of requiring the evaluator to manually review the values in a scan. I filled the majority out electronically, printed, wet ink signed, rescanned to PDF and submitted that. I dont think that the ATF site has an esignable form to use, and thats where I got my .23's from also for those whose forms are coming back, are you getting email notifications, or is that system still wonky and you have to go in and manually look yourself in Eforms? |
|
Originally Posted By ScottinAZ: I filled the majority out electronically, printed, wet ink signed, rescanned to PDF and submitted that. I dont think that the ATF site has an esignable form to use, and thats where I got my .23's from also for those whose forms are coming back, are you getting email notifications, or is that system still wonky and you have to go in and manually look yourself in Eforms? I always wet sign and scan back in, but some folks have said they always get away using acrobat's ability to sign using the signature font, which definitely seems a lot easier, and keeps the values field based. |
|
Originally Posted By scuba_steve: Especially if you don't have an approval on the same trust within the last 24 months, and applied for the related exemption. I had my trust restated not long ago, so I'm going to wait for this approval before I submit another one, and then apply for the next one claiming the exemption with a letter stating the same. Originally Posted By scuba_steve: Originally Posted By Flevvy: Eform 4 trust approvals are naturally going to take longer. Hopefully they start rolling in quickly. Especially if you don't have an approval on the same trust within the last 24 months, and applied for the related exemption. I had my trust restated not long ago, so I'm going to wait for this approval before I submit another one, and then apply for the next one claiming the exemption with a letter stating the same. FWIW. When I talked to ATF about the 24 month exemption. They claimed it actually takes longer. Attached File |
Not everyone gets to be an astronaut, the world needs pole dancers too. ~Observer
|
Originally Posted By ScottinAZ: from what I understand, you need 2 sets of physical prints for EACH Form 1.... or you can get them converted to ETF, and use them indefinitely.... which is what I did (national gun trusts did mine in under 24 hrs with a high res scan of the cards....) mine are also a trust if that helps This is helpful - I will just get the EFT this time around - thanks! |
|
Originally Posted By patrickwest: I am getting ready to submit several Form 1s... how is everyone doing fingerprints now? (Trust) Can you send in 1 physical set of prints for multiple submissions? Or does it make more sense to get a .EFT file and submit that way? Surprisingly the eForms site seems to be running ok so far for me... probably just jinxed it lol .eft is the way to go. As for submitting multiple. You can send multiple cover sheets with your prints. Only possible downside is that if that one envelope gets lost/delayed it affects all those forms. |
Not everyone gets to be an astronaut, the world needs pole dancers too. ~Observer
|
Originally Posted By 02limitedwj: FFL/SOT and cant submit any forms. Error messages all morning and nothing submitted. Saved forms and tried to pull up the drafts and get an error message about 10 minutes later saying unable to load data. fun morning! Keep trying... I had five or so errors before mine went through. |
|
Originally Posted By chevrofreak: I just got my $0 approval as well on a Form 1 silencer. What time did you submit it on 1/1? Individual or trust? Also, does anyone know if they're emailing notifications of approvals or is that still messed up like it was a week or so ago? |
|
Originally Posted By vellnueve: Honestly the site is working better than expected, other than the apparent rate limiting step of actually submitting. The rest of the functionalities seemed unaffected by the volume of people using it. I logged in this morning and the site was significantly slower to load than it was yesterday. |
|
Originally Posted By Glocked: FWIW. When I talked to ATF about the 24 month exemption. They claimed it actually takes longer. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/483179/57071ECE-9B20-4EC3-ADDC-7EB31D61B013_jpe-3686612.JPG Well, that sucks. And is pretty stupid. |
|
Originally Posted By scuba_steve: Well, that sucks. And is pretty stupid. Originally Posted By scuba_steve: Originally Posted By Glocked: FWIW. When I talked to ATF about the 24 month exemption. They claimed it actually takes longer. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/483179/57071ECE-9B20-4EC3-ADDC-7EB31D61B013_jpe-3686612.JPG Well, that sucks. And is pretty stupid. I’m pretty sure it’s a relic to the old days at this point. Emails and at home all in one printer/copier/scanners being common make up only a fraction of the time the NFA has been around. Being able to upload a copy with 2-3 mouse clicks. It made more sense when a copy meant going to a print store and paying for copies to be made. Being able to write an exemption yourself on a piece of paper and put it in the envelope was a benefit. |
Not everyone gets to be an astronaut, the world needs pole dancers too. ~Observer
|
Originally Posted By 3one5: Agreed, if it was good within the last 24 months and nothing changed why wouldn't it just be pushed through. But we're dealing with the government here. And with all this being digital files now, it's arguably even easier for you to just re-upload your trust document for the new submission vs. having to take the time to type up the letter explaining that you're asking for the exception.
|
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: I mean it does make sense given the explanation they gave in that email. When the Examiner gets to your form, if you sent the trust document with it then it's right there ready for them to read through. If you send the exemption letter, they then need to stop and go search through their saved files and try to find your old trust document before they can then proceed. And with all this being digital files now, it's arguably even easier for you to just re-upload your trust document for the new submission vs. having to take the time to type up the letter explaining that you're asking for the exception. Makes sense. |
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: I mean it does make sense given the explanation they gave in that email. When the Examiner gets to your form, if you sent the trust document with it then it's right there ready for them to read through. If you send the exemption letter, they then need to stop and go search through their saved files and try to find your old trust document before they can then proceed. And with all this being digital files now, it's arguably even easier for you to just re-upload your trust document for the new submission vs. having to take the time to type up the letter explaining that you're asking for the exception. At one point I heard trust documents had to be examined by someone with some legal expertise on their side to determine validity, implying the examiner would need to engage with some other resources, delaying the process. Not sure that is correct, but either way, seems however they review and validate a trust, if a future applicant states they are using the same trust as the one associated with approved application 1234567890, without modification, and the name on the current application reflects that trust name, I have no idea why they would need to see that original trust. Or want to. Seems like it would be far easier for them to search for the approved application with that control number, verify it was submitted with the same trust name, and determine who the RPs were on it (and who need to be on the new application), by reviewing the application in a familiar application they use all day long, rather than paging through an unfamiliar trust document. |
|
Originally Posted By scuba_steve: At one point I heard trust documents had to be examined by someone with some legal expertise on their side to determine validity, implying the examiner would need to engage with some other resources, delaying the process. Not sure that is correct, but either way, seems however they review and validate a trust, if a future applicant states they are using the same trust as the one associated with approved application 1234567890, without modification, and the name on the current application reflects that trust name, I have no idea why they would need to see that original trust. Or want to. Seems like it would be far easier for them to search for the approved application with that control number, verify it was submitted with the same trust name, and determine who the RPs were on it (and who need to be on the new application), by reviewing the application in a familiar application they use all day long, rather than paging through an unfamiliar trust document. I almost guarantee you they have an internal policy to fully review the trust every time, even for the 24mo. exemption cases. They're probably afraid they might have screwed up and missed something (missing an RP questionnaire, misspelled persons name, etc.) when they did the first submission and don't want that same mistake to then carry over to the new one. |
| Bought a can in store at PSA this morning. They are having major eforms issues. Earliest I could get an appt to do paperwork is 1/12.....and that is with them making appointments outside of regular business hours. Its been non stop over there apparently. |
"Some people have issues. Sounds like he signed up for an entire subscription." ~Brohawk
Proud member of Team Ranstad.
Arfcom St Jude Mafia 3 years
Arfcom callsign: trenchfoot
Proud member of Team Ranstad.
Arfcom St Jude Mafia 3 years
Arfcom callsign: trenchfoot
|
NSSF just sent out an alert. Attached File Industry Alert: ATF e-Forms Processing Surge and System Outages The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has acknowledged to the National Shooting Sports Foundation® an unprecedented surge in e-Forms submissions that is impacting system performance. On January 1 alone, ATF processed approximately 150,000 e-Forms, compared to a typical daily volume of around 2,500. As a result of this volume, ATF is experiencing intermittent IT system glitches and delays that are affecting industry members nationwide. ATF has emphasized that it is actively working to address these technical issues and is engaging directly with affected industry members to resolve problems as quickly as possible. NSSF® recognizes that these disruptions are frustrating for industry members and can result in operational challenges, customer service issues, and a loss of revenues. We have communicated these concerns directly to ATF and underscored the importance of restoring system stability and reliability as soon as possible. ATF has acknowledged the urgency and reiterated its commitment to resolving the issues. In the meantime, NSSF urges industry members to remain patient while ATF works through these growing pains. We encourage retailers to document issues as they occur and to work directly with ATF when problems arise, as this information helps identify and correct systemic challenges. NSSF strongly encourages all industry members to contact their U.S. Representative and U.S. Senators to advocate for additional funding for ATF. Much of the current disruption stems from outdated and under-resourced IT infrastructure. Congressional support for IT modernization is essential to improving system reliability and preventing similar disruptions in the future. NSSF will continue to monitor the situation closely and provide updates as more information becomes available. |
If you're not confused, you're not paying attention.
|
Originally Posted By MitchbSC: NSSF just sent out an alert. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/24522/Screenshot_from_2026-01-02_14-30-09_png-3686739.JPG Seriously, it’s not realistic to spend the money to handle 150,000 submissions per day, because it isn’t going to be than many every day from now on. Not even close. The reality is that writing your Congress critter is worthless because 1) the change of getting enough interest for them to spend even more money they don’t have on something like this is zero, and 2) by the time your letter gets there and Congress gets back from their latest vacation, the problem will likely have resolved itself. Guess the NSSF has to look like they’re concerned to keep the $$$ flowing. |
|
Originally Posted By D_Man: I almost guarantee you they have an internal policy to fully review the trust every time, even for the 24mo. exemption cases. They're probably afraid they might have screwed up and missed something (missing an RP questionnaire, misspelled persons name, etc.) when they did the first submission and don't want that same mistake to then carry over to the new one. Originally Posted By D_Man: Originally Posted By scuba_steve: At one point I heard trust documents had to be examined by someone with some legal expertise on their side to determine validity, implying the examiner would need to engage with some other resources, delaying the process. Not sure that is correct, but either way, seems however they review and validate a trust, if a future applicant states they are using the same trust as the one associated with approved application 1234567890, without modification, and the name on the current application reflects that trust name, I have no idea why they would need to see that original trust. Or want to. Seems like it would be far easier for them to search for the approved application with that control number, verify it was submitted with the same trust name, and determine who the RPs were on it (and who need to be on the new application), by reviewing the application in a familiar application they use all day long, rather than paging through an unfamiliar trust document. I almost guarantee you they have an internal policy to fully review the trust every time, even for the 24mo. exemption cases. They're probably afraid they might have screwed up and missed something (missing an RP questionnaire, misspelled persons name, etc.) when they did the first submission and don't want that same mistake to then carry over to the new one. I have no doubt. There is zero motivation for them to be efficient. |
OFFICIAL $0 Form 1/Form 4 Experience Thread (Page 3 of 20)
Armory Sponsor