I have a 7.62 can that got a bad baffle strike that breached the tube of the can.  I've sent it off to the manufacturer and they are unable to repair the can but have offered to help me get a replacement can.  I bought the can on a Trust.  The manufacturer is going to completely destroy my damaged can and notify the ATF of said destruction.  
 My question is will I have to pay another $200 stamp for the replacement can?

No.

They will probably issue a replacement can with an identical serial # or notify the ATF to change your registration to include the new #,  but you shouldn't have to pay for a new stamp.

I thought the latest ruling said if they replaced the serial #'d part, it would be a new "taxable event" as in it could still transfer back to you directly since it was sent frfom you to the manufacturer but there would be another $200 tax......

.......................................update................ the previous posted paragraph in which I posted here has been deleted and deemed mostly untrue and possibly libilous.per unnamed informative by email.  I hereby withdraw the information stated as it was passed to me inaccurately on another site and should be assumed heresay.  Gemtax just means the promotional paid stamp fee by said company.    Anyway, yes you will have to pay a new $200 stamp tax.

Inaccurate as all hell.  Did you get all of that information from the internet?

Edited to specify - it is a new $200 tax, though the process from then to now I don't agree with.

Can you provide the correct info then?  What is accurate, will the OP have to buy another stamp or no?

Q: May a Federal Firearms Licensee repair a silencer by replacing worn or damaged components?
A person who is licensed under the Gun Control Act (GCA) to manufacture firearms and who has paid the special (occupational) tax to manufacture National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms may replace a component part or parts of a silencer. Repairs may not be done if they result in removal, obliteration, or alteration of the serial number, as this would violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). If a silencer part bearing the serial number, other than the outer tube, must be replaced, the new part must be marked with the same serial number as the replacement part.

The term “repair” does not include replacement of the outer tube of the silencer. The outer tube is the largest single part of the silencer, the main structural component of the silencer, and is the part to which all other component parts are attached. The replacement of the outer tube is so significant an event that it amounts to the “making” of a new silencer. As such, the new silencer must be marked, registered and transferred in accordance with the NFA and GCA.

In the event that identical replacement parts for a silencer are not available, new and different component parts may be used as long as the silencer retains the same dimensions and caliber. In addition, the repair may result in a minimal reduction in the length of the outer tube due to rethreading, but repair may not increase the length of the outer tube. Increasing the length of the outer tube significantly affects the performance of the silencer and results in the “making” of a new silencer. As stated above, a new silencer must be marked, registered and transferred in accordance with the NFA and GCA. Reducing the length of the tube by a minimal amount in order to repair a silencer is often necessary to replace damaged end caps, as the tube must be rethreaded. Such minimal reduction of the length of the tube uses all of the original parts, does not significantly affect performance of the silencer, and may be done as part of a repair process without making a new silencer.

Persons other than qualified manufacturers may repair silencers, but replacement parts are “silencers” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(24) that must be registered and transferred in accordance with the NFA and GCA.

Q: May the outer tube of a registered silencer be repaired due to damage? If so, may the repair be done by someone other than the original manufacturer?
A damaged outer tube may be repaired by any Federal firearms licensee qualified to perform gunsmithing or by the registered owner. The repair may not alter the dimensions or caliber of the silencer, except that the length of the outer tube may be reduced, as set forth above. The repair may not be performed if it results in the removal, obliteration, or alteration of the serial number, as this would violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(k). In that case, the silencer may be returned to the registered owner in its original, damaged condition or destroyed. A replacement silencer must be registered and transferred to the registrant of the damaged silencer in the same manner as a new silencer, subject to the registration and transfer procedures of the NFA and GCA.

Q: If the outer tube is destroyed or damaged beyond repair, may it be replaced?
Unless the outer tube is replaced by the manufacturer prior to its removal from the manufacturing premises for purposes of sale or distribution (see “If a silencer is found to be defective due to the manufacturing process, may it be replaced?”), the replacement of the outer tube amounts to the making of a new silencer. For the registered owner to fabricate a new outer tube, he or she must submit an ATF Form 1 (5320.1), Application to Make and Register a Firearm, pay the making tax of $200, and receive ATF approval. The application to make should indicate that the new tube is being fabricated for use in replacing a damaged outer tube on a registered silencer, and the application should indicate the make, model and serial number of the registered silencer. It would be helpful for the applicant to include a copy of the approved registration for the silencer. Assembly of the newly fabricated tube with the other parts of the registered silencer does not require an additional application to make nor payment of another making tax, as the one Form 1 will provide permission to fabricate the new tube and to assemble it with the old silencer parts. The replacement tube must be marked in accordance with 27 C.F.R. § 479.102. The registrant may use the same serial number that appeared on the damaged tube.

If the registered owner wishes to acquire a replacement tube from a person other than a qualified manufacturer, the replacement tube must be registered as a new silencer by the other person and transferred to the registered owner in accordance with the NFA and GCA. The other person must submit an ATF Form 1, pay the $200 making tax, and receive ATF approval to make the replacement tube. The replacement tube must be marked in accordance with 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.92 and 479.102. The other person would then transfer the replacement tube to the owner of the damaged silencer, subject to the transfer tax, in accordance with the NFA and GCA. The new tube may be then be assembled with the other parts. The original damaged silencer should be reported to the NFA Branch as destroyed.

Alternatively, a qualified manufacturer may replace the tube, report the manufacture on ATF Form 2 (5320.2), Notice of Firearms Manufactured or Imported, and transfer the replacement tube to the owner in accordance with the NFA and GCA. The transfer must comply with the $200 transfer tax and all other provisions of the NFA, as it would be a new silencer. The replacement tube must also be marked in accordance with 27 C.F.R. §§ 478.92 and 479.102. The required markings include an individual serial number and the name, city, and State of the manufacturer who replaced the tube. The replacement tube may not be marked with the name, city, and State of the original manufacturer of the silencer, as this would be a false marking. Although the new tube is a new silencer for purposes of the NFA, it would be a replacement firearm of the same type as the original silencer, and it may be returned directly to the registrant in interstate commerce in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(2). The original damaged silencer should be reported to the NFA Branch as destroyed.

Found this here

Inaccurate how?  He pretty much nailed it.  I think you owe him an apology.

We've handled several warranty replacements for customers in the last year.  Every single one of them required a new transfer tax because the replacement item had a new serial number.  Since we handled these transfers for customers who originally bought their suppressors from us we handled the transfers free of charge.  So, the manufacturer transferred the items to us on Form 3s and then from us to the customer on a Form 4 (with $200 tax to be paid).

If you need a suppressor replaced under warranty, keep in mind you will likely need a dealer to transfer it.  So, factor in a transfer fee unless the dealer will do it free (assuming you are an existing customer and they are willing to do that).

Mark

See my post oabove and the NFA FAQ above.  I had mine repaired and transfered directly to me, however, it was recommended a note be included on the F4 as to why it is transfering on a F4 to an out of state indiv. so the ATF examiner know why to approve the interstate xfer.....

Yes, I have heard of them allowing that.  But there isn't a guaranty of it that I know of.  Also, I know more than one manufacturer who absolutely will not do a Form 4 to an individual.    

Good info though.  Thanks for sharing your experience.  I had heard of it but not from what I'd call a "trusted source".  I've seen you on here enough to think of you as a credible giver of info.  

Actually it is spot on.



 

My bad, I knew the $200 new tube rule was in place.  I wasn't contending that.  I was contending the process to where we are today.  I was under the impression it was a rule that had always been in place but laxly enforced.  Much like what happened to YHM and their rear assemblies for the M2 series.  I was under the impression it was because manufacturers were crushing suppressors, creating a new can with different specs (not just internally) and using the old serial number to avoid another tax stamp.

Though I am being a bit of a hypocrite, as most of my information was received from the internet

Edit: Post 1099, crap another piece of paper to add to the tax file.

So Gemtech bitched and everything went bad for everyone, but what does this have to do with Gemtax?

I've fallen prey to the oldest forum fight on the books, nevermind.

The term "Gemtax" originated from this "action".  I know of more then 1 rebuild of bad tubes before this all went down but after the "clarification" was asked for, it was no longer GTG.  Meaning you had to pay a new tax on the new (same serial #) can, this new tax was referred to as the "Gemtax" due to the fact that Gemtech inadvertently opened the door for this change that cost us all a new tax.

After the term started to take hold it was the quick thinking of Gemtech that something must be done to stop the spread.  They then took the term that was negative and made it an annual deal during tax season to help their image and fool those who don't know about the history of the term.  Thus using linguistic fluidity to completely change the meaning.

Apparently it's working also as this is the 2nd time today I've tried to explain this.

I hope I explained that well.

I went through this a year ago.

You have to buy a new can.

You have to get a new tax stamp.

My damanged can was cut in half lengthwise by my machinist.  Now I have two halves that I use as paper weights.

The original tax stamp is framed and hanging next to my safe to remind me of my $800 mistake, and to remind me to spend the $50 having my machinist check every new barrel I get for concentricity.

What he said.

It was already illegal to transfer serial numbers the way I digested the statutes.

How does that reconcile with this: " The replacement tube must be marked in accordance with 27 C.F.R. § 479.102. The registrant may use the same serial number that appeared on the damaged tube. "

I really think the BATFE FAQ page I cited above clarifies all of this......

Read the question that answer was wrt:



...prior to its removal from the
manufacturing premises for purposes of sale or distribution...





 

I did read....and the first part says it can be remanufactured as a non taxable even before it leaves the premises.  The next three parts identify taxable events after it has left the original manufacturer premises.  The first is the owner makes a new tube and submits a form 1 as a taxable event.  The second a non-qualified inidv. makes a new tube (two taxabel events one F1 and one F4).  The third is a qualified manufactuers makes a new tube nad F2's it and xfers it to the original owner as a taxable F4 event.  In the first case it specifically states the owner may make a new tube, regisitering on a F1 and paying the $200 tax, using the old internal parts and the same serial number that appeared on the damaged tube. .

Thus allowing you, the registered owner, to effectively recreate (wrt to a portable sound supressor) a new tube using the old guts and the old serial number.  This is a taxable event and does require you to pay the $200 tax, however, it is a taxable repair so you are allowed to reuse the old S. No.  Not in part 2 and 3, since you are not the registerant of record, than this is manufacturing and not repair requiring new serial numbers and markings....

Sell that stamp to a stamp collector.  YES, they will pay decent money for it.  

Yep.  I just love how some people read the portion they want and then stop.  Or maybe they stop when they run out of breath cuz they have to read out loud to make sense of things?  I dunno.  

You gonna still argue this?  Just let the experts win for once, will ya?  

Seriously?!?!  It wasn't just AAC doing this.  It was common!!!  I personally know (have touched) at least 3 cans that were rebuilt, updated, made better, and so on.  I thought only AAC had fanboys and kool-aid drinkers.

...except that Gemtech's letter destroyed the ease of suppressor replacements after tube damages.  Gemtech played with fire by contacting the ATF about what AAC was doing, and the whole industry, and its customers, got burned because of it.

+1000

Amen brother...

It was all but unregulated before this fiasco.  It's a pity it changed.  

Yes, but the context of this thread is a can that has left the MFG area and is not being replaced on Form 1. You were the one who highlighted the MFG area portion, and not the form 1 portion....
 

Crystal.

It was already a rule by the ATF (as good as a law these days).

So you're whining about the whiners...





I think more people are pissed at the fact that someone's interpretation or opinion becomes "law" without any of the proceedings usually required to do so, and people like you don't just bend over and take it, but defend their arbitrary rulings as well...  





The ATF is pissing in everyone's cheerios again...





 

Gemtech should have publicly ostracized AAC for doing it.  Instead, they went crying to the teacher, and the teacher gave everyone a detention instead of just AAC.

I'm not saying what AAC did was right, I'm saying that Gemtech's actions directly lead to the loss of easy warranty replacements of suppressors.  Spin it all you want trying to make AAC look like the bad guy here, but Gemtech's actions directly lead to this, while AAC's actions only indirectly lead to it.

YES Gemtech was the one who squealed but just because companies were getting away with it didn't make it right.

You can seriously quantify a finite number of lost sales of Gemtech suppressors because AAC was "rebuilding" them and making them quieter?  Really?

I seriously doubt their sales were hurt that much by it.  It was an insult for sure, but it's a big reach to make the claims you made without evidence.

Gemtech played with fire, and we all got burned.  They thought ATF resolving their problem was worth the risk of ATF decrees, so they took action.  I don't see why it's wrong to blame them for that judgment on their part, especially with what happened after.

MrGreg-  And how the F do you know that Gemtech was the one to have said anything to the ATF anyway?

It seemed pretty obvious that AAC went beyond replacing the internals, and replaced the original tube and marked it with Gemtech's info (more likely they just put Gemtech's info on one of their own silencers, I'm not sure they even have the capability to do that kind of custom repair work on their own).

That has NEVER been legal to do, by anyone.

And they proudly posted pics of it online.

But it's all Gemtech's fault.

Got it.

So it's a conspiracy theory against Gemtech, and all of the SOTs on the first page who agreed with what was said are buying into it.

Gotcha.

Which SOTs on the first page agree with what exactly?  You're missing the point.  You NEVER were allowed to replace a tube without issuing a new serial number and without the customer paying a new tax.  

Mand76 is correct.

Gemtech was running along by the rules because the ATF told them they couldn't re-serialize a new tube with an old number like AAC was proud to display.  I don't care who you are, if you owned that company you would have done the same.  If your competitor was allowed to do something you couldn't then you know what you would do.  

It's been pointed out that many companies have rebuilt cans, but that usually involved rebuilding internals.  AAC went full retard and publicly displayed a rebuilt can using one of their silencer tubes as a PR stunt.  If it's called anything it should be called the GemtAACs.

This is my understanding of the situation.

To me this is a clear case of "two wrongs don't make a right".

Was AAC wrong to behave the way they did?  I think so, yes.  They made a public display of rebuilding a Gemtech suppressor just for the publicity and to stick a finger in Gemtech's eye.  Oh, it worked.  They got publicity all right.  You know that saying about no publicity being bad publicity?  This might be the exception.  Their actions are partly to blame for the ATF getting involved.

Was Gemtech wrong to go crying to the ATF?  Hell yes.  What the hell were they trying to achieve?  Phil and the gang at Gemtech have been around long enough to have known this could have ended in a decision that would hurt the entire industry and that is just what happened.  In an attempt to have the ATF slap down AAC, Gemtech succeeded at having the ATF hand down a ruling that put an end to the way a LOT of manufacturers handled warranty repairs.  

I see fault in the actions of both companies.  But what is done is done.  I really wish everyone could get beyond all the petty bickering and fan boy loyalty.  We can't change what was done and wasting time after the fact is simply not productive.  We all make mistakes.  I bet if they had it all to do over again both sides would have acted differently.  At least I hope so.

It is an old score between Dater and Brittingham.  Too bad they can't settle it and get on with life.


Mark

Nice post, Mark.



Read the first page again, this time with the Gemtech fanboy blinders off.



..and you're missing the point by crying conspiracy theory and saying everything against Gemtech here is baseless, false claims.

Regardless of what AAC did, tell me with a straight face that manufacturers shouldn't be able to warranty-replace cans by stamping the same serial on a new tube.  Even the ATF didn't think that was wrong, so they never stopped it.  But, once again, Gemtech played with fire to stop AAC taking advantage of ATF's lack of enforcement, knowing that ATF involvement has an equal chance of making things better or worse.  Gemtech knew about the old letter saying that replacement of a tube wasn't allowed, and they had to know that making a stink about AAC would have put the "gentleman's agreement" between ATF and companies doing new tube manufacturer replacements in jeopardy.  They felt it was worth the risk, and so they took a chance, and their actions directly lead to a breaking of that "gentleman's agreement" by ATF.  It's as simple as that.  I'm sorry you keep dancing around the idea, claiming conspiracy theory and whatnot, but what happened is pretty established.  Gemtech played with fire by contacting the ATF to solve their feud, and everyone got burned, not just AAC.

If I was to pin point how this ruling came about, and moreso, why the changes to how it was enforced I would look towards the people who began cutting serial numbers off of macs and making new MG's such as 1919A4's with the old serial no's on welded on them.  I freely admit I have no knowledge of this happening but have read it on the internet (so it must be true).  

Nevertheless, if that was true I could see why the BATFE would have to put the smackdown on enforcment and just say no more rebuilding with old serial numebrs and consdiering it the same as the original.  

Food for thought...

Dan

What I highlighted in red is TOTALLY FUCKING WRONG and because you don't understand that the ATF NEVER thought that was ok I will cease to deal with your bullshit.  Just because you didn't see the ATF go after anyone for it doesn't mean it wasn't against the rules/laws/stupidity or whatever you want to call it.

 

Show me some convictions against suppressor companies for doing it, then.  I sure haven't seen any, and you make it sound like they're widespread.

i think the point of clarifiaction notices is to say how it is from this day fwd, not to go back and prosecute common practices.  Kinda' like when an executive order changes the import definition.  They don't go back and prosecute things from before, even though the law didn't change.  They just tell you how it is interpeted now .....

I disagree with you Book.



It was Gemtax's fault for not honoring the warranty of the original user of the can that was having issues with it.



If they would have done what they should have done in the first place, this whole thing would not have happened.

I don't own cans from either company but the above post is spot on!