User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 8:48:26 AM EDT
[#1]
I can't help but feel this "clarification" was brought to you by the people who kept writing to ask if a brace is a stock if you put it on your shoulder.
thread adaptors are now suppressors. thanks a lot. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 9:30:10 AM EDT
[#2]
If you plan on building a can on a form 1, anything you buy is intended to be used in and designed or redesigned to be a silencer part.
This is tarded |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 9:32:13 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Logcutter: It was his opinion (that I now share) that reaching out in there manner I did would likely take a home visit or worse off the table. I can absolutely see how the AFT could screw this up and start serving no knocks on people that just moved into apartment 201 that had nothing to do with this at all. |
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 10:52:49 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Walleyeguy24:This thread was started on 12/30. We still have no idea what is going on. The pistol brace clarification fiasco has been going on for almost a decade. And we still don't have a final answer... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 11:20:59 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DFARM: If you plan on building a can on a form 1, anything you buy is intended to be used in and designed or redesigned to be a silencer part. This is tarded Yup... if I make a bushing for a tool and then a suppressor mount out of the same piece of 416 stainless round, does the tool become a suppressor too? Fucking AFT. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 11:37:42 AM EDT
[#6]
They are pushing too far and setting themselves up for a total failure. By their logic, no form 1 silencers would be legal. Can they seriously prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone wasn't intent on building a solvent trap? A solvent trap actually is a legitimate thing, especially in things like a .22 where excess leading or copper can happen.
Sadly, it is going to take someone to get charged, convicted, and then go through the appeals process to get this straightened out. Or get a jury that isn't full of idiots to at least get themselves cleared. There is no law that makes any of this illegal. Period. There is no question that anyone who went through the steps of filing a form 1 wasn't without a doubt attempting to follow not only that actual laws on the books, but also the ATFs "rules" and generally agreed upon practices. You cannot just post facto change the rules, especially when there is no law to back it up. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 12:37:53 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Walleyeguy24: They are pushing too far and setting themselves up for a total failure. By their logic, no form 1 silencers would be legal. Can they seriously prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone wasn't intent on building a solvent trap? A solvent trap actually is a legitimate thing, especially in things like a .22 where excess leading or copper can happen. Sadly, it is going to take someone to get charged, convicted, and then go through the appeals process to get this straightened out. Or get a jury that isn't full of idiots to at least get themselves cleared. There is no law that makes any of this illegal. Period. There is no question that anyone who went through the steps of filing a form 1 wasn't without a doubt attempting to follow not only that actual laws on the books, but also the ATFs "rules" and generally agreed upon practices. You cannot just post facto change the rules, especially when there is no law to back it up. Georgia case Hawk Innovative Tech vs US. If this continues it may be the start of getting the answers. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 9:25:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: stevestrike]
[#8]
Now I remember why I stopped posting here. Never mind, you clearly have it figured out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 9:28:33 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By stevestrike:but DM's lawyers then say to a court, "well, if those were indeed suppressor parts, then why are you not going after all of DM's customers too? This is a witch hunt against DM" That's just not how court works. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 9:34:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: stevestrike]
[#10]
Deleted
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/10/2022 10:55:29 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hahns10mm: Everybody clutching their pearls and calling the ATF are not helping. STFU and move on with your life. +1. STFU, stop talking to the cops. |
|
|
|
NC, USA
|
Posted: 2/11/2022 10:01:37 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Vonbongo: Georgia case Hawk Innovative Tech vs US. If this continues it may be the start of getting the answers. Both the cases probably will not go well for the solvent trap community: Hawk wasn't charged with anything they just had forfeiture, it would have been much easier for them to win against a charge as a defendant. They are asking a judge to make a determination on what is a silencer part instead, the ATF are suppose to be the experts that are tasked with making such determinations, so it would be extremely rare for a judge to make a determination over them. If ATF expects they will loose they will just fold and return Hawk's money to avoid a verdict that could go against them on the silencer parts issue. In DM's case two of the defendants had actual completed suppressors without form 1, one in state where there is not a way to legally possess them. What constitutes suppressor parts is a minor issue in a case where there are actual illegal suppressors fully build and used. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/11/2022 10:50:28 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JohnA4: I can absolutely see how the AFT could screw this up and start serving no knocks on people that just moved into apartment 201 that had nothing to do with this at all. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JohnA4: Originally Posted By Logcutter: It was his opinion (that I now share) that reaching out in there manner I did would likely take a home visit or worse off the table. I can absolutely see how the AFT could screw this up and start serving no knocks on people that just moved into apartment 201 that had nothing to do with this at all. After talking with my counsel, it was out opinion that by contacting the local office and attempting to comply, we would likely simply be contacted back if the ATF goes full "surrender all the things" on this. I have no ability to change what the ATF does, but I do know that you win 100% of the gunfights you don't get into, and I don't want to have survived several in wartime only to lose one against a SWAT team in CONUS over something I paid a $200 tax for and submitted to an extensive background check to build. Everyone's gotta do what they're gonna do, but it's not the hill I'm charging up with my bayonet fixed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/11/2022 10:33:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DFARM]
[#14]
Is there any organization that we can reach out to about this and rattle some cages in defense of those of us who tried to do the right thing?
I messaged second amendment foundation on Instagram but haven't seen a response. Also, do you think there's anyone arguing on our behalf inside the ATF or is it just a big circle jerk about how many people they're going to screw? The more I think about this situation, the more pissed off I get about it. In my case, I had approved forms in hand before I received the parts I had made by DM.(I bought from him before there was a website and kits. I emailed him and told him what sizes and materials I wanted) I've been using the shit out of these things for over seven years and everything was fine. If the aft didn't have email records from DM, even they would think everything was gtg. How could they tell what it was or where it came from otherwise? Amazon and eBay are full of suspicious looking storage containers and at least for a while people were making threaded caps for maglite tubes. Are flashlights silencers now? I used freeze plugs to make my baffles, purchased after I had a form 1 in hand, so clearly I intended to design or redesign them to be silencer parts, is Napa screwed too? Fuck me this is irritating. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2022 8:59:30 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Beta08: And how would they possibly know which Form 1s to revoke, unless, of course, you voluntarily disclosed that information to them over phone/email for some reason? There’s nothing on a Form 1 which asks you to attach a parts list. The closest they could do is try and correlate dates of submitted/issued Form 1s from the NFA database to purchases from DM, and that doesn’t prove anything (not that they need proof). Plus, they’ve already admitted that type of cross reference is “too hard” because of trusts and other lame excuses. Or, are they saying they’ll revoke ALL Form 1s? Can’t imagine they’ll get far with that, but I’ve been wrong plenty. Non-legal advice: Spend less time losing sleep over this. Whatever ends up happening will happen and there’s not really anything you can do to change it. Those with approved Form 1s are clearly attempting to follow the intent of the law, and if it comes down to it, should be easy to prove that. Non-legal advice from Obi-Wan: https://i.ibb.co/R6J67tY/40972405-047-B-4-EB8-B601-3288-C1-F29276.jpg Form ones don’t ask for material certs?  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2022 3:08:32 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DFARM: Is there any organization that we can reach out to about this and rattle some cages in defense of those of us who tried to do the right thing? I messaged second amendment foundation on Instagram but haven't seen a response. Also, do you think there's anyone arguing on our behalf inside the ATF or is it just a big circle jerk about how many people they're going to screw? The more I think about this situation, the more pissed off I get about it. In my case, I had approved forms in hand before I received the parts I had made by DM.(I bought from him before there was a website and kits. I emailed him and told him what sizes and materials I wanted) I've been using the shit out of these things for over seven years and everything was fine. If the aft didn't have email records from DM, even they would think everything was gtg. How could they tell what it was or where it came from otherwise? Amazon and eBay are full of suspicious looking storage containers and at least for a while people were making threaded caps for maglite tubes. Are flashlights silencers now? I used freeze plugs to make my baffles, purchased after I had a form 1 in hand, so clearly I intended to design or redesign them to be silencer parts, is Napa screwed too? Fuck me this is irritating. Some people have posted on form1.org saying they have reached out to senators and congressman, as wall as the SAF and GOA... no responses. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/12/2022 4:31:28 PM EDT
[#17]
I have sent emails to Rand Paul and Thomas Massie. Paul and I have had emails back and forth in the past and I would expect him to recognize my name and email address. Neither have responded. I don't think we are going to get any help on this one.
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 2/12/2022 4:52:17 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dayphotog: Form ones don’t ask for material certs? Nope |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2022 5:24:33 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Beta08: Nope Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Beta08: Originally Posted By dayphotog: Form ones don’t ask for material certs? Nope Just the caliber and overall length. I suppose one "fuck you" back to them would be building another one (if these ones get destroyed or turned in) and just making it the same dimensions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2022 10:04:32 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DFARM: Just the caliber and overall length. I suppose one "fuck you" back to them would be building another one (if these ones get destroyed or turned in) and just making it the same dimensions. I wouldn't do that if you turn it in. It has the serial # matching your form 1. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2022 10:11:12 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AR_Dale:I wouldn't do that if you turn it in. It has the serial # matching your form 1. Since the ATF says you can't form 1 a form 4 suppressor, he engraved the DM stuff with something that looks like a SN for kicks and still has a valid unused stamp on his actual Form 1. Either the form 1 stamp was used to make a suppressor or it was not. The ATF can't have it both ways....unless they want to. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2022 10:22:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DFARM]
[#22]
Originally Posted By AR_Dale: I wouldn't do that if you turn it in. It has the serial # matching your form 1. If it comes to that, I'll probably cut it in half with a bandsaw. Originally Posted By Keyst0ne: Since the ATF says you can't form 1 a form 4 suppressor, he engraved the DM stuff with something that looks like a SN for kicks and still has a valid unused stamp on his actual Form 1. Either the form 1 stamp was used to make a suppressor or it was not. The ATF can't have it both ways....unless they want to. This. They do what they want |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/12/2022 10:55:58 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DFARM: If it comes to that, I'll probably cut it in half with a handsaw. This. They do what they want I wasn't recommending turning in and I wouldn't call them. Destroying it might be best if it comes to that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2022 10:39:15 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DFARM: If it comes to that, I'll probably cut it in half with a bandsaw. This. They do what they want Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DFARM: Originally Posted By AR_Dale: I wouldn't do that if you turn it in. It has the serial # matching your form 1. If it comes to that, I'll probably cut it in half with a bandsaw. Originally Posted By Keyst0ne: Since the ATF says you can't form 1 a form 4 suppressor, he engraved the DM stuff with something that looks like a SN for kicks and still has a valid unused stamp on his actual Form 1. Either the form 1 stamp was used to make a suppressor or it was not. The ATF can't have it both ways....unless they want to. This. They do what they want Proper destruction of NFA items requires two cuts with a torch. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2022 2:05:32 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Proper destruction of NFA items requires two cuts with a torch. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Originally Posted By DFARM: Originally Posted By AR_Dale: I wouldn't do that if you turn it in. It has the serial # matching your form 1. If it comes to that, I'll probably cut it in half with a bandsaw. Originally Posted By Keyst0ne: Since the ATF says you can't form 1 a form 4 suppressor, he engraved the DM stuff with something that looks like a SN for kicks and still has a valid unused stamp on his actual Form 1. Either the form 1 stamp was used to make a suppressor or it was not. The ATF can't have it both ways....unless they want to. This. They do what they want Proper destruction of NFA items requires two cuts with a torch. That's one of those things where the ATF gives differing guidance depending on where you look. NFA Handbook says torch cut is preferred, but saw cut can be acceptable, and also mentions crushing a silencer tube is ok. ATF website specifically the a bandsaw is a no go, but crushing, melting, and shredding are allowed. Now the email autoreply the ATF is sending out only mentions crushing, melting, and shredding if I remember right. So who knows lol |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2022 4:23:19 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dskeet: That's one of those things where the ATF gives differing guidance depending on where you look. NFA Handbook says torch cut is preferred, but saw cut can be acceptable, and also mentions crushing a silencer tube is ok. ATF website specifically the a bandsaw is a no go, but crushing, melting, and shredding are allowed. Now the email autoreply the ATF is sending out only mentions crushing, melting, and shredding if I remember right. So who knows lol Good to know they're always doing their best to be consistent. I suppose the same folks who would consider a solid threaded pipe plug a silencer that needs to be transferred via form 4 could say that a silencer that's split down the middle with a saw is still functional. Lol |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2022 4:55:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Idahoskunk]
[#27]
Breaking, AFT pit maneuvers van suspected of delivering and installing suppressor parts.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2022 8:00:43 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DFARM: Good to know they're always doing their best to be consistent. I suppose the same folks who would consider a solid threaded pipe plug a silencer that needs to be transferred via form 4 could say that a silencer that's split down the middle with a saw is still functional. Lol Not functional. Easily restored to functionality. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2022 10:34:51 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Idahoskunk: Breaking, AFT pit maneuvers van suspected of delivering and installing suppressor parts. https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/81803/A43280BA-0551-4F88-95F6-E042095FD8DD-2278141.jpg Per AFT, if you have any plumbing in your house, you may have already committed multiple thought crimes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/13/2022 11:25:40 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Not functional. Easily restored to functionality. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Originally Posted By DFARM: Good to know they're always doing their best to be consistent. I suppose the same folks who would consider a solid threaded pipe plug a silencer that needs to be transferred via form 4 could say that a silencer that's split down the middle with a saw is still functional. Lol Not functional. Easily restored to functionality. I'm 100% sure it was easier to make it originally than it would be to weld the halves of a titanium tube together back together straight enough to work. Lol |
|
|
|
CT, USA
|
Posted: 2/14/2022 8:20:56 AM EDT
[#31]
@DFARM @UtahShotgunner
The ATF still considers these silencers.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2022 9:32:03 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By User55645: @DFARM @UtahShotgunner The ATF still considers these silencers. https://external-preview.redd.it/Ynf1qVc1JoUhGPQ47hcX0uE1vY7RfvvWu-H54b-8ggo.jpg?auto=webp&s=f792ddd2506033924256022cf6990cad7f0394a1 Thanks for posting that. Now everyone in this thread has 16 illegal silencers in their browser cache. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2022 12:10:57 PM EDT
[#33]
Originally Posted By User55645: @DFARM @UtahShotgunner The ATF still considers these silencers. https://external-preview.redd.it/Ynf1qVc1JoUhGPQ47hcX0uE1vY7RfvvWu-H54b-8ggo.jpg?auto=webp&s=f792ddd2506033924256022cf6990cad7f0394a1 That's a cool collection. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2022 1:23:31 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DFARM: I'm 100% sure it was easier to make it originally than it would be to weld the halves of a titanium tube together back together straight enough to work. Lol Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DFARM: Originally Posted By UtahShotgunner: Originally Posted By DFARM: Good to know they're always doing their best to be consistent. I suppose the same folks who would consider a solid threaded pipe plug a silencer that needs to be transferred via form 4 could say that a silencer that's split down the middle with a saw is still functional. Lol Not functional. Easily restored to functionality. I'm 100% sure it was easier to make it originally than it would be to weld the halves of a titanium tube together back together straight enough to work. Lol I don't disagree with you. Commenting on the standard as currently enforced by the ATF. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/14/2022 1:25:07 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By User55645: @DFARM @UtahShotgunner The ATF still considers these silencers. https://external-preview.redd.it/Ynf1qVc1JoUhGPQ47hcX0uE1vY7RfvvWu-H54b-8ggo.jpg?auto=webp&s=f792ddd2506033924256022cf6990cad7f0394a1 Yep. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2022 1:36:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: boltcatch]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By anacondavet: They are testing compliance of their BS. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By anacondavet: Originally Posted By eodinert: I find it amusing that sending the ATF a copy of a form from their office, maintained by their office, clears things up. It's almost like if that is all they need, they could check for it before they sent out letters or contacted people. They are testing compliance of their BS. It's a fishing expedition from people who don't have the time, people, or budget to quickly check the records, and are looking for fast results. Originally Posted By 07MDRubi: You can make an SBR out of available parts that require no machining and a novice could put together in 45 minutes. An AR pistol can be turned into a SBR in 5 seconds with no machining, a SBS can be made in 15 seconds with a grinder. No magic and no special skill needed and you have an NFA item, yet until you actually do put a stock on it or cut the barrel you are good. Also as long as you haven’t crossed the arbitrary line you are allowed to submit a Form 1 for permission to make your own SBR or SBS. Even if you have all the parts already and a pending stamp you are not violating any law just having parts sit around while you wait for permission to assemble them. . Originally Posted By Walleyeguy24: They are pushing too far and setting themselves up for a total failure. By their logic, no form 1 silencers would be legal. Can they seriously prove beyond a reasonable doubt that someone wasn't intent on building a solvent trap? A solvent trap actually is a legitimate thing, especially in things like a .22 where excess leading or copper can happen. . This is intentional. Just as with various 80% firearm pushes from the feds and states, the ultimate goal here is to ban as much material assistance as possible for people to DIY. Unless they did some massive editing, the last version of the new 80% rules I saw say anything marketed as being able to be made into a firearm regardless of the state of completion, or possessed with instructions to do so, or possessed with along with the capability (read tools, jigs) to do so within an undefined standard of "readily convertible", is a firearm. It is easy to see where that sort of thing takes them here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 5:28:52 PM EDT
[#37]
Been some new developments with this whole thing.
People are getting new form 1 applications to build a silencer denied by the ATF. The reason is basically long winded legal speak saying it's illegal to build a silencer out of parts that ATF says are already a silencer. How do they know the application wasn't just starting with raw materials and a lathe? Who knows. But this could basically be the end of form 1 silencer building. Prince Law has a new blog up about the DM situation. Seems what they are hearing from the ATF basically solidified what the ATF starting saying a few weeks ago. Basically form 1 cans made from DM parts are now contraband. People who have them can apparently expect a new letter with more info. https://blog.princelaw.com/2022/02/28/update-on-diversified-machine-products/ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 5:46:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2A373]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dskeet: Been some new developments with this whole thing. People are getting new form 1 applications to build a silencer denied by the ATF. The reason is basically long winded legal speak saying it's illegal to build a silencer out of parts that ATF says are already a silencer. How do they know the application wasn't just starting with raw materials and a lathe? Who knows. But this could basically be the end of form 1 silencer building. Prince Law has a new blog up about the DM situation. Seems what they are hearing from the ATF basically solidified what the ATF starting saying a few weeks ago. Basically form 1 cans made from DM parts are now contraband. People who have them can apparently expect a new letter with more info. https://blog.princelaw.com/2022/02/28/update-on-diversified-machine-products/ I got my denial email today. How can they say what I'm using is already a suppressor when there is nothing on the Form 1 stating what is being used? I have not bought anything from Diversified Machine. Here is what mine reads...  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 5:59:11 PM EDT
[Last Edit: DFARM]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By boltcatch: It's a fishing expedition from people who don't have the time, people, or budget to quickly check the records, and are looking for fast results. This is intentional. Just as with various 80% firearm pushes from the feds and states, the ultimate goal here is to ban as much material assistance as possible for people to DIY. Unless they did some massive editing, the last version of the new 80% rules I saw say anything marketed as being able to be made into a firearm regardless of the state of completion, or possessed with instructions to do so, or possessed with along with the capability (read tools, jigs) to do so within an undefined standard of "readily convertible", is a firearm. It is easy to see where that sort of thing takes them here. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By boltcatch: It's a fishing expedition from people who don't have the time, people, or budget to quickly check the records, and are looking for fast results. This is intentional. Just as with various 80% firearm pushes from the feds and states, the ultimate goal here is to ban as much material assistance as possible for people to DIY. Unless they did some massive editing, the last version of the new 80% rules I saw say anything marketed as being able to be made into a firearm regardless of the state of completion, or possessed with instructions to do so, or possessed with along with the capability (read tools, jigs) to do so within an undefined standard of "readily convertible", is a firearm. It is easy to see where that sort of thing takes them here. I hope to see a court case where an angry agent of the state is holding a 6x8x2" block of aluminum and raging about how dangerous things like this are. Lol Originally Posted By 2A373: I got my denial email today. How can they say what I'm using is already a suppressor when there is nothing on the Form 1 stating what is being used? I have not bought anything from Diversified Machine. Here is what mine reads... https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/54089/ftatf_jpg-2296592.JPG I think I posted in here that it seemed like they were trying to eliminate form 1 builds because once you file a form 1, everything you buy for the project meets their definition of a silencer that should be transferred via form 4. "Any part intended to be....." Filing a form 1 is intent. Lol |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 6:16:56 PM EDT
[#40]
I was disapproved for a form1 today, and yes I bought 2 pieces of pipe from them DM years ago. I applied for 4 form ones at the same time. So we will see what happens.im going to call them tomorrow and get more insight. I was approved for 5 form 4s in the last 20 days. I try to do everything by the book but fuck!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 6:18:38 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Bangpew: I was disapproved for a form1 today, and yes I bought 2 pieces of pipe from them DM years ago. I applied for 4 form ones at the same time. So we will see what happens.im going to call them tomorrow and get more insight. I was approved for 5 form 4s in the last 20 days. I try to do everything by the book but fuck! I was going to do a couple of F1 suppressors soon, but this has me thinking a SBR, SBS, or DD of my 37mm launcher are all better ideas. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:24:53 PM EDT
[#42]
I contacted one of my Senators, Rand Paul, and he sent a snail mail letter stating they contacted the AFT.
20 minutes after I open it his office emailed they need a form filled out "ATF Tax Disclosure Consent Form" Atleast some movement. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 7:55:01 PM EDT
[#43]
Yeah one of the form 1s I applied for is a sbr so I'm curious to see what they do because I sent them all at one time but only one was disapproved today. Who knows it's a bunch of bull shit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 10:00:12 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BigPolska: Yup... if I make a bushing for a tool and then a suppressor mount out of the same piece of 416 stainless round, does the tool become a suppressor too? Fucking AFT. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BigPolska: Originally Posted By DFARM: If you plan on building a can on a form 1, anything you buy is intended to be used in and designed or redesigned to be a silencer part. This is tarded Yup... if I make a bushing for a tool and then a suppressor mount out of the same piece of 416 stainless round, does the tool become a suppressor too? Fucking AFT. So on a more serious note, when the AFT raids my home, shoots my pets, and sodomizes me, will I face a felony charge for each washer in my bolt bin? Metric and standard? What about all my metal stock in the machine shop racks? Will each round bar be a felony, but square stock exempt? Or since I can turn square stock, is it also a pseudo suppressor part? I feel bad for the guys with 3d printers. All of that plastic on those rolls, all suppressor baffles. *sigh*  I'm still down to chip in on the legal fees to sue these fuckers |
|
|
|
IA, USA
|
Posted: 2/28/2022 10:12:18 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BigPolska: So on a more serious note, when the AFT raids my home, shoots my pets, and sodomizes me, will I face a felony charge for each washer in my bolt bin? Metric and standard? What about all my metal stock in the machine shop racks? Will each round bar be a felony, but square stock exempt? Or since I can turn square stock, is it also a pseudo suppressor part? I feel bad for the guys with 3d printers. All of that plastic on those rolls, all suppressor baffles. *sigh* I'm still down to chip in on the legal fees to sue these fuckers I have some 8" 6061T6 round, it's probably a suppressor for a DD due to the size alone. |
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/1/2022 10:25:40 AM EDT
[#46]
Does anyone know of an attorney knowledgeable in NFA stuff in FL, preferably central FL? Or would reaching out to someone like Prince Law be the best move?
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/1/2022 12:05:46 PM EDT
[#47]
Pure speculation:
Perhaps they have sales records from sellers other than DM? Another possibility that sounds par for government bureaucracy is that they deny all pending applications and then change the application process to include a statement that you acknowledge that you can’t buy parts prior to your form 1 being approved or that you “can’t buy machined parts that can be made into silencer parts in less than 1 hour” or some silliness. Then if you use any pre-made parts you’ve painted yourself into a corner. I guess if you can redefine the rules at will and don’t have to pay your own lawyer bills then anything is possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2022 12:11:47 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Morgan321: Pure speculation: Perhaps they have sales records from sellers other than DM? Another possibility that sounds par for government bureaucracy is that they deny all pending applications and then change the application process to include a statement that you acknowledge that you can’t buy parts prior to your form 1 being approved or that you “can’t buy machined parts that can be made into silencer parts in less than 1 hour” or some silliness. Then if you use any pre-made parts you’ve painted yourself into a corner. I guess if you can redefine the rules at will and don’t have to pay your own lawyer bills then anything is possible. Probably not specifically DM related. There is probably some new type of guidance coming out and language will added to application about status of goods used as parts so they want everyone to re-apply agreeing to that. They made an internal ruling that center parts are silencer parts back in 2017 but didn't tell anyone. The one case that went to trial (User in Washington State ordered a Alieppress trap that was was fully drilled monocore and center marked end cap with the tube) they ended up having to drop. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/1/2022 4:59:12 PM EDT
[#49]
I wonder if they are going to want plans for form one suppressors before they approve them listing parts you plan to use. The way this reads, you would have to machine everything out of raw materials, even then it seems like they might try to say the bar stock you bought to make baffles out of was a suppressor part, because you intended to make a suppressor with it.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2022 9:32:37 PM EDT
[#50]
Seems like it is also a 5th Amendment paradox. If Intent makes something a silencer part and therefore a silencer submitting a Form 1 is a demonstration of intent and therefore creates your silencer before you have an approved form 1...
Part of me really wonders if any of the big manufacturers are behind this. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
