User Panel
Posted: 2/28/2022 5:04:04 PM EDT
So I submitted an eForm 1 to build a .22 can. Haven't bought anything at all yet, was waiting for it to get approved.
Was disapproved today with this: A SILENCER IS DEFINED UNDER FEDERAL LAW TO INCLUDE, IN RELEVANT PART, ANY COMBINATION OF PARTS, DESIGNED OR REDESIGNED, AND INTENDED FOR USE IN ASSEMBLING OR FABRICATING A FIREARM SILENCER OR FIREARM MUFFLER, AND ANY PART INTENDED ONLY FOR USE IN SUCH ASSEMBLY OR FABRICATION. SEE GUN CONTROL ACT (GCA) AT 18 U.S.C. 921(A)(24) AND NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT (NFA) AT 26 U.S.C. 5845. PARTS THAT FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SILENCER MUST COMPLY WITH THE REGISTRATION, TAX, AND TRANSFER PROVISIONS OF THE NFA. UPON REVIEW OF YOUR EFORM 1 APPLICATION, THE PART FROM WHICH YOU INTEND TO MAKE A SILENCER ALREADY MEETS THE NFAS DEFINITION OF SILENCER. THE PART WAS NOT REGISTERED NOR TRANSFERRED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE NFA, THEREFORE, YOUR EFORM 1 APPLICATION TO MAKE A SILENCER IS DISAPPROVED. NFA DIVISION NOTES THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR YOU TO POSSESS A SILENCER MADE OR TRANSFERRED IN VIOLATION OF THE NFA. 26 U.S.C. 5861(B)(C). What's the deal here. Looks like they are shutting down homebrew suppressors completely? The name signed is a Kerri Hingman I think. |
|
I just got the exact same denial, except the signature is Keith D. H something.
My question is how can they say what I'm making one from is already a suppressor when there is nothing on the form saying what I'm using? |
|
That's fucked up. This shit is ridiculous
Just tryin' to protect their fucking hearing. Unreal. Edit: there's another thread. Same shit. |
|
Quoted: I just got the exact same denial, except the signature is Keith D. H something. My question is how can they say what I'm making one from is already a suppressor when there is nothing on the form saying what I'm using? View Quote Exact same thing just happened to me today. Same examiner. |
|
Buddy of mine has his denied today also. Said he's on a discord thread with 100s of them saying the same thing
|
|
|
|
Quoted: I just got the exact same denial, except the signature is Keith D. H something. My question is how can they say what I'm making one from is already a suppressor when there is nothing on the form saying what I'm using? View Quote How do they know what you're using to make the can?? There is nowhere on the form to list your building materials. Dafuq are those fuckers up to over there??? |
|
Quoted: I just got the exact same denial, except the signature is Keith D. H something. My question is how can they say what I'm making one from is already a suppressor when there is nothing on the form saying what I'm using? View Quote I was afraid this could happen once all the stuff with DM start getting more and more clear as far as what the ATF was thinking. The federal definition of a silencer is vague enough that it basically lets them say anything they want is a silencer/silencer part. The whole "designed or redesigned" part of the definition gives them that ability. A raw metal tube.. even if it needs lathe work for the OD, ID, and threading.. they can still say its a silencer part because someone "redesigned it" to be a silencer tube. It's total horseshit, but I'd bet that's what they are doing. This would effectively end all form 1 silencer building. Now I just wonder where it all stops. Are they going to start revoking already approved form 1's for silencers and saying its all contraband? That's what they are saying they are doing with form 1 cans built from DM parts. |
|
Quoted: https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/49684/F686EE45-1BCA-4C52-82FE-E35339A093D2_jpe-2296602.JPG same guy mass denying them? View Quote Different person for me. Attached File |
|
I just sent an inquiry through "ask the expert". Will post their response when I hear back.
So do we get refunded the $200 for the denial or do we have to eat it. |
|
|
Quoted: I was afraid this could happen once all the stuff with DM start getting more and more clear as far as what the ATF was thinking. The federal definition of a silencer is vague enough that it basically lets them say anything they want is a silencer/silencer part. The whole "designed or redesigned" part of the definition gives them that ability. A raw metal tube.. even if it needs lathe work for the OD, ID, and threading.. they can still say its a silencer part because someone "redesigned it" to be a silencer tube. It's total horseshit, but I'd bet that's what they are doing. This would effectively end all form 1 silencer building. Now I just wonder where it all stops. Are they going to start revoking already approved form 1's for silencers and saying its all contraband? That's what they are saying they are doing with form 1 cans built from DM parts. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I just got the exact same denial, except the signature is Keith D. H something. My question is how can they say what I'm making one from is already a suppressor when there is nothing on the form saying what I'm using? I was afraid this could happen once all the stuff with DM start getting more and more clear as far as what the ATF was thinking. The federal definition of a silencer is vague enough that it basically lets them say anything they want is a silencer/silencer part. The whole "designed or redesigned" part of the definition gives them that ability. A raw metal tube.. even if it needs lathe work for the OD, ID, and threading.. they can still say its a silencer part because someone "redesigned it" to be a silencer tube. It's total horseshit, but I'd bet that's what they are doing. This would effectively end all form 1 silencer building. Now I just wonder where it all stops. Are they going to start revoking already approved form 1's for silencers and saying its all contraband? That's what they are saying they are doing with form 1 cans built from DM parts. Hell, by their definition a piece of 1" 6061 bar stock is a suppressor. And I haven't bought anything from Diversified Machine. Attached File |
|
Quoted: I just got the exact same denial, except the signature is Keith D. H something. My question is how can they say what I'm making one from is already a suppressor when there is nothing on the form saying what I'm using? View Quote They have ESP now? Or... They listened to your phone calls, read your texts and looked through your browsing history? Violating a slew of laws... Either way, it is bullshit. To shut down all home builds, they can't claim to know what you are building one from when they don't. And they cannot possibly claim a tube or a solid piece of billet aluminum or steel is already a silencer, either. They can't claim all potential pieces of metal that once machined can operate as a suppressor are ALREADY a suppressor. Yet that is what they are trying to achieve with their redefinition sin the new proposal. Seems they are trying to pretend their new proposed rule went through already |
|
Quoted: They have ESP now? Or... They listened to your phone calls, read your texts and looked through your browsing history? Violating a slew of laws... Either way, it is bullshit. To shut down all home builds, they can't claim to know what you are building one from when they don't. And they cannot possibly claim a tube or a solid piece of billet aluminum or steel is already a silencer, either. They can't claim all potential pieces of metal that once machined can operate as a suppressor are ALREADY a suppressor. Yet that is what they are trying to achieve with their redefinition sin the new proposal. Seems they are trying to pretend their new proposed rule went through already View Quote If they continue that line of thought, Any AR-15 receiver, once drilled correctly, can be a machine gun. So, all AR-15 receivers are already machine guns. |
|
Quoted: If they continue that line of thought, Any AR-15 receiver, once drilled correctly, can be a machine gun. So, all AR-15 receivers are already machine guns. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: They have ESP now? Or... They listened to your phone calls, read your texts and looked through your browsing history? Violating a slew of laws... Either way, it is bullshit. To shut down all home builds, they can't claim to know what you are building one from when they don't. And they cannot possibly claim a tube or a solid piece of billet aluminum or steel is already a silencer, either. They can't claim all potential pieces of metal that once machined can operate as a suppressor are ALREADY a suppressor. Yet that is what they are trying to achieve with their redefinition sin the new proposal. Seems they are trying to pretend their new proposed rule went through already If they continue that line of thought, Any AR-15 receiver, once drilled correctly, can be a machine gun. So, all AR-15 receivers are already machine guns. |
|
Quoted: If they continue that line of thought, Any AR-15 receiver, once drilled correctly, can be a machine gun. So, all AR-15 receivers are already machine guns. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: They have ESP now? Or... They listened to your phone calls, read your texts and looked through your browsing history? Violating a slew of laws... Either way, it is bullshit. To shut down all home builds, they can't claim to know what you are building one from when they don't. And they cannot possibly claim a tube or a solid piece of billet aluminum or steel is already a silencer, either. They can't claim all potential pieces of metal that once machined can operate as a suppressor are ALREADY a suppressor. Yet that is what they are trying to achieve with their redefinition sin the new proposal. Seems they are trying to pretend their new proposed rule went through already If they continue that line of thought, Any AR-15 receiver, once drilled correctly, can be a machine gun. So, all AR-15 receivers are already machine guns. It is worse than that. In the proposed rule, they redefine "readily" to mean a full 8 hour day in a fully stocked and functioning machine shop. They reference a court case that used that definition. And when you apply that definition, any piece of metal, much less a semi auto, can be "readily converted" to a machine gun, cause it takes a lot less than 8 hours when you have access to cmc machines and all the other high tech goodies. ...And what is "readily converted into a machine gun" is per their fucked up thinking the same thing as "a machine gun." So Lowe's and Home Depot must register as FFL's and so must Alcoa and every aluminum and steel processor. And all 80% receivers and all current semi autos are machine guns. That is where they are trying to go. |
|
Quoted: It is worse than that. In the proposed rule, they redefine "readily" to mean a full 8 hour day in a fully stocked and functioning machine shop. They reference a court case that used that definition. And when you apply that definition, any piece of metal, much less a semi auto, can be "readily converted" to a machine gun, cause it takes a lot less than 8 hours when you have access to cmc machines and all the other high tech goodies. ...And what is "readily converted into a machine gun" is per their fucked up thinking the same thing as "a machine gun." So Lowe's and Home Depot must register as FFL's and so must Alcoa and every aluminum and steel processor. And all 80% receivers and all current semi autos are machine guns. That is where they are trying to go. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: They have ESP now? Or... They listened to your phone calls, read your texts and looked through your browsing history? Violating a slew of laws... Either way, it is bullshit. To shut down all home builds, they can't claim to know what you are building one from when they don't. And they cannot possibly claim a tube or a solid piece of billet aluminum or steel is already a silencer, either. They can't claim all potential pieces of metal that once machined can operate as a suppressor are ALREADY a suppressor. Yet that is what they are trying to achieve with their redefinition sin the new proposal. Seems they are trying to pretend their new proposed rule went through already If they continue that line of thought, Any AR-15 receiver, once drilled correctly, can be a machine gun. So, all AR-15 receivers are already machine guns. It is worse than that. In the proposed rule, they redefine "readily" to mean a full 8 hour day in a fully stocked and functioning machine shop. They reference a court case that used that definition. And when you apply that definition, any piece of metal, much less a semi auto, can be "readily converted" to a machine gun, cause it takes a lot less than 8 hours when you have access to cmc machines and all the other high tech goodies. ...And what is "readily converted into a machine gun" is per their fucked up thinking the same thing as "a machine gun." So Lowe's and Home Depot must register as FFL's and so must Alcoa and every aluminum and steel processor. And all 80% receivers and all current semi autos are machine guns. That is where they are trying to go. At some point after the first the rest are free. I've said many times over the years that w/ 8 hours in a fully equipped machine shop raw aluminum &/or steel is a gun. It's whatever you want. |
|
I put this in another thread when the word got out that they had created a searchable firearms database in violation of the law yet again, but I am gonna make it available again for anyone who wants to use it to contact their congressional reps and senators. Feel free to use it in whole or in parts, or use it as a letter to the editor for your local paper or whatever you want...
Click To View Spoiler Dear Representative or Senator,
The BATFE is out of control, violating numerous laws, and must be brought to heel. Please note the BATFE has again violated the 1986 FOPA and the 1941 Property Requisition Act that both outlaw the creation of a national firearms registry or firearm owners database. This is the second time in 20 years they have criminally violated the law. This data must be destroyed and all agents and leadership responsible must be prosecuted and imprisoned. Correcting the problem alone will not suffice. Accountability is required. "While the ATF denies that these records are used to track gun owners, it transfers hard copies of the information into a searchable digital database that it says is used to trace firearms tied to crimes. The ATF reported that 865,787,086 of the records are already in a digital format." https://freebeacon.com/guns/biden-admin-has-records-on-nearly-one-billion-gun-sales/ Digitizing the data into a searchable database is admitted and a clear violation of the law. In addition, the BATFE is moving forward on two proposed rules which unlawfully usurp Congressional authority by redefining language in the statutes you wrote. The agency presumes authority to redefine words such as "firearm, rifle, pistol, complete silencer, readily, receiver" and others. BATFE is not entitled to Chevron deference as Congress has already spoken directly to the precise issue at question, when Congress defined the meaning of these words in the statute. There is an additional reason this rulemaking is not even entitled to Chevron deference in the first place. As stated by Judge Karen Batchelor of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in GOA v. Garland, “But in 2014, the Court said, “we have never held that the Government’s reading of a criminal statute is entitled to any deference.” United States v. Apel, 571 U.S. 359, 369 (2014)(emphasis added) (citing Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 177 (1990) (Scalia, J.,concurring in the judgment)). “Never” and “any” are absolutes, and the Court did not draw any distinctions, nor add any qualifiers, or identify any exceptions. The rule changes by BATFE will criminalize what is currently lawful behavior and the possession of legally purchased property, turning 10-40 million Americans into felons overnight (estimate by Congressional Research Service). The BATFE's revised definition of "readily" will allow the agency to reclassify AR-15's and all semi-automatic weapons as machine guns. Their reimagining of "receiver" will classify nerf guns as firearms subject to background checks, and force Lowes, Home Depot and Toys'R'Us to register as FFL's. These two rule changes (2021R-05 and 2021R-08) must be terminated, and similar actions blocked. Further, the penalties for NFA violations of 10 years/$250,000 for failure to pay a $200 tax constitute cruel and unusual punishment, and do not even remotely follow the schedule of penalties for tax payment delinquency. How can these penalties be justified, when IRS employees collectively owe hundreds of thousands (if not millions) in back taxes, yet are still employed and receiving annual bonuses? When citizens who owe millions are not even sentenced to a day in prison, but are offered opportunities to pay pennies on the dollar of the tax owed, the current punishment for NFA tax delinquency is unquestionably criminally cruel and unusual. The penalties for failing to register an NFA item and pay the $200 tax must be reduced to realistic and equitable IRS penalties that follow any other failure to pay a tax. Finally, as short barreled rifles and suppressors are owned in sufficient numbers to be considered "in common use" (140,000 or more per SCOTUS' Caetano), both should immediately be removed from the NFA registration requirements. Thank you for your attention to these pressing matters of 2nd amendment civil rights and the BATFE's criminal violations of the law. Sincerely, |
|
Quoted: At some point after the first the rest are free. I've said many times over the years that w/ 8 hours in a fully equipped machine shop raw aluminum &/or steel is a gun. It's whatever you want. View Quote And you're right on both counts. Hell, 20 minutes after you get home from any hardware store you can have a fully functional shotgun. None of these proposed regs are kosher with the Bill of Rights or statutory law. They cannot usurp the legislature's authority to define words in law, nor can any agency legally create or alter criminal law, which is what both proposed regs do: they will each result in currently lawful activity and possession of legally acquired property to become a felony. They will create millions of felons overnight, rather than decrease crime, and will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on crimes against persons, violence, shootings, armed robbery, murders, etc. Frankly, everything that is ostensibly controlled and covered by the NFA is owned in such numbers that it's per SCOTUS definition "in common use". Only have to exceed 140,000 which is what Caetano held was the number of tazers in use when they were categorized in common use and thus protected. So SBR's, machine guns and suppressors are all protected as they are all owned in numbers to qualify as "in common use". Aside from which... every gun law by its nature is an infringement and unconstitutional... And if you wanna nitpick, even the Attorney General and Congress admitted during debate of the NFA that they had no policing powers over firearms, and that they could not legally ban machine guns from public ownership! That is public record, and referenced in the verdict of US v Rock Island Arms, as well as the congressional records. All ownership, possession and ban laws and regs need to be abolished to comply with the Constitution. There isn't a victim created by the behaviors, anyhow, so these laws do not save a single life nor deter a single criminal. Ok, rant over. |
|
rock river arms View Quote US v Rock Island Arms is what you seek. |
|
|
I just got the exact same thing. I have no idea what it means.
|
|
You can build a .177 air gun suppressor from Legos. Since it's not attached to the air gun while building it, it has to be Form 1'd.
|
|
Quoted: And you're right on both counts. Hell, 20 minutes after you get home from any hardware store you can have a fully functional shotgun. None of these proposed regs are kosher with the Bill of Rights or statutory law. They cannot usurp the legislature's authority to define words in law, nor can any agency legally create or alter criminal law, which is what both proposed regs do: they will each result in currently lawful activity and possession of legally acquired property to become a felony. They will create millions of felons overnight, rather than decrease crime, and will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on crimes against persons, violence, shootings, armed robbery, murders, etc. Frankly, everything that is ostensibly controlled and covered by the NFA is owned in such numbers that it's per SCOTUS definition "in common use". Only have to exceed 140,000 which is what Caetano held was the number of tazers in use when they were categorized in common use and thus protected. So SBR's, machine guns and suppressors are all protected as they are all owned in numbers to qualify as "in common use". Aside from which... every gun law by its nature is an infringement and unconstitutional... And if you wanna nitpick, even the Attorney General and Congress admitted during debate of the NFA that they had no policing powers over firearms, and that they could not legally ban machine guns from public ownership! That is public record, and referenced in the verdict of US v Rock Island Arms, as well as the congressional records. All ownership, possession and ban laws and regs need to be abolished to comply with the Constitution. There isn't a victim created by the behaviors, anyhow, so these laws do not save a single life nor deter a single criminal. Ok, rant over. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: At some point after the first the rest are free. I've said many times over the years that w/ 8 hours in a fully equipped machine shop raw aluminum &/or steel is a gun. It's whatever you want. And you're right on both counts. Hell, 20 minutes after you get home from any hardware store you can have a fully functional shotgun. None of these proposed regs are kosher with the Bill of Rights or statutory law. They cannot usurp the legislature's authority to define words in law, nor can any agency legally create or alter criminal law, which is what both proposed regs do: they will each result in currently lawful activity and possession of legally acquired property to become a felony. They will create millions of felons overnight, rather than decrease crime, and will have absolutely no effect whatsoever on crimes against persons, violence, shootings, armed robbery, murders, etc. Frankly, everything that is ostensibly controlled and covered by the NFA is owned in such numbers that it's per SCOTUS definition "in common use". Only have to exceed 140,000 which is what Caetano held was the number of tazers in use when they were categorized in common use and thus protected. So SBR's, machine guns and suppressors are all protected as they are all owned in numbers to qualify as "in common use". Aside from which... every gun law by its nature is an infringement and unconstitutional... And if you wanna nitpick, even the Attorney General and Congress admitted during debate of the NFA that they had no policing powers over firearms, and that they could not legally ban machine guns from public ownership! That is public record, and referenced in the verdict of US v Rock Island Arms, as well as the congressional records. All ownership, possession and ban laws and regs need to be abolished to comply with the Constitution. There isn't a victim created by the behaviors, anyhow, so these laws do not save a single life nor deter a single criminal. Ok, rant over. Would be nice if things went that way but I don't see it happening. We've got another 3 years of the idiot in chief and he's going to go after guns pretty aggressively I think. |
|
|
Seems abundantly clear now
Even when citizens attempt to hand over rights on a silver platter, it is broken off in your ass anyways. Do they really intend to become cohesive with things now after writing all the brace opinion letters in the past? Unless that was the plan... |
|
Quoted: Seems abundantly clear now Even when citizens attempt to hand over rights on a silver platter, it is broken off in your ass anyways. Do they really intend to become cohesive with things now after writing all the brace opinion letters in the past? Unless that was the plan... View Quote Might be a good opportunity for a lawsuit if they really have stopped denying all F1 suppressor builds. |
|
|
They won't stop until every gun owner has been legislated into a criminal.
|
|
|
Quoted: I was afraid this could happen once all the stuff with DM start getting more and more clear as far as what the ATF was thinking. The federal definition of a silencer is vague enough that it basically lets them say anything they want is a silencer/silencer part. The whole "designed or redesigned" part of the definition gives them that ability. A raw metal tube.. even if it needs lathe work for the OD, ID, and threading.. they can still say its a silencer part because someone "redesigned it" to be a silencer tube. It's total horseshit, but I'd bet that's what they are doing. This would effectively end all form 1 silencer building. Now I just wonder where it all stops. Are they going to start revoking already approved form 1's for silencers and saying its all contraband? That's what they are saying they are doing with form 1 cans built from DM parts. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: I just got the exact same denial, except the signature is Keith D. H something. My question is how can they say what I'm making one from is already a suppressor when there is nothing on the form saying what I'm using? I was afraid this could happen once all the stuff with DM start getting more and more clear as far as what the ATF was thinking. The federal definition of a silencer is vague enough that it basically lets them say anything they want is a silencer/silencer part. The whole "designed or redesigned" part of the definition gives them that ability. A raw metal tube.. even if it needs lathe work for the OD, ID, and threading.. they can still say its a silencer part because someone "redesigned it" to be a silencer tube. It's total horseshit, but I'd bet that's what they are doing. This would effectively end all form 1 silencer building. Now I just wonder where it all stops. Are they going to start revoking already approved form 1's for silencers and saying its all contraband? That's what they are saying they are doing with form 1 cans built from DM parts. There is nothing saying they are going after already approved diversified machine approved form1s. Quite the opposite if you read their letter. They say to turn in, destroy or form1 your contraband. |
|
Quoted: There is nothing saying they are going after already approved diversified machine approved form1s. Quite the opposite if you read their letter. They say to turn in, destroy or form1 your contraband. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I just got the exact same denial, except the signature is Keith D. H something. My question is how can they say what I'm making one from is already a suppressor when there is nothing on the form saying what I'm using? I was afraid this could happen once all the stuff with DM start getting more and more clear as far as what the ATF was thinking. The federal definition of a silencer is vague enough that it basically lets them say anything they want is a silencer/silencer part. The whole "designed or redesigned" part of the definition gives them that ability. A raw metal tube.. even if it needs lathe work for the OD, ID, and threading.. they can still say its a silencer part because someone "redesigned it" to be a silencer tube. It's total horseshit, but I'd bet that's what they are doing. This would effectively end all form 1 silencer building. Now I just wonder where it all stops. Are they going to start revoking already approved form 1's for silencers and saying its all contraband? That's what they are saying they are doing with form 1 cans built from DM parts. There is nothing saying they are going after already approved diversified machine approved form1s. Quite the opposite if you read their letter. They say to turn in, destroy or form1 your contraband. A lot has changed since that letter went out 2 months ago. I've followed it closely. For most of January and February the answer from the ATF changed several times a week. The letter was nearly obsolete the day it was delivered to everyone. The guidance from the ATF went from "if you have an approved form 1 you are good" to "it's all contraband and must be destroyed or turned in" over a period of 2 months. Heres a blog post from Prince Law with the latest as of today: https://blog.princelaw.com/2022/02/28/update-on-diversified-machine-products/ TL;DR: Form 1 cans (I assume of DM customers only) will be removed from the NFRTR. They can be turned in to a local field office or destroy them. |
|
Quoted: A lot has changed since that letter went out 2 months ago. I've followed it closely. For most of January and February the answer from the ATF changed several times a week. The letter was nearly obsolete the day it was delivered to everyone. The guidance from the ATF went from "if you have an approved form 1 you are good" to "it's all contraband and must be destroyed or turned in" over a period of 2 months. Heres a blog post from Prince Law with the latest as of today: https://blog.princelaw.com/2022/02/28/update-on-diversified-machine-products/ TL;DR: Form 1 cans (I assume of DM customers only) will be removed from the NFRTR. They can be turned in to a local field office or destroy them. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I just got the exact same denial, except the signature is Keith D. H something. My question is how can they say what I'm making one from is already a suppressor when there is nothing on the form saying what I'm using? I was afraid this could happen once all the stuff with DM start getting more and more clear as far as what the ATF was thinking. The federal definition of a silencer is vague enough that it basically lets them say anything they want is a silencer/silencer part. The whole "designed or redesigned" part of the definition gives them that ability. A raw metal tube.. even if it needs lathe work for the OD, ID, and threading.. they can still say its a silencer part because someone "redesigned it" to be a silencer tube. It's total horseshit, but I'd bet that's what they are doing. This would effectively end all form 1 silencer building. Now I just wonder where it all stops. Are they going to start revoking already approved form 1's for silencers and saying its all contraband? That's what they are saying they are doing with form 1 cans built from DM parts. There is nothing saying they are going after already approved diversified machine approved form1s. Quite the opposite if you read their letter. They say to turn in, destroy or form1 your contraband. A lot has changed since that letter went out 2 months ago. I've followed it closely. For most of January and February the answer from the ATF changed several times a week. The letter was nearly obsolete the day it was delivered to everyone. The guidance from the ATF went from "if you have an approved form 1 you are good" to "it's all contraband and must be destroyed or turned in" over a period of 2 months. Heres a blog post from Prince Law with the latest as of today: https://blog.princelaw.com/2022/02/28/update-on-diversified-machine-products/ TL;DR: Form 1 cans (I assume of DM customers only) will be removed from the NFRTR. They can be turned in to a local field office or destroy them. That’s BS. Jump through all these hoops to make your property legal and then they tell you you have to destroy it anyways. |
|
Disturbing.
I wonder how long before an 02 manufacturer has the same issue as they are not buying registered parts |
|
|
Using the same "logic", how can suppressor manufactures make suppressors either?
Unlike private Joe's they can make a suppressor prior to registering it, using their SOT 7 or whatever it is to make NFA items - but the same logic would apply. They would make a suppressor from something that's already a suppressor, but doesn't have a serial number on it. Thus, they're breaking the law too. Same logic with an SBR. You can't make it after a Form 1, as it's already an SBR since it takes less than 8 hours in a machine shop to make into a SBR. |
|
Quoted: Using the same "logic", how can suppressor manufactures make suppressors either? Unlike private Joe's they can make a suppressor prior to registering it, using their SOT 7 or whatever it is to make NFA items - but the same logic would apply. They would make a suppressor from something that's already a suppressor, but doesn't have a serial number on it. Thus, they're breaking the law too. Same logic with an SBR. You can't make it after a Form 1, as it's already an SBR since it takes less than 8 hours in a machine shop to make into a SBR. View Quote According to their fucked up logic as applied to suppressors, the rifle is an illegal SBR the minute you decide in your mind you want to make it an SBR... likely while it is still on the shelf at the dealer, or while it is in parts at a dozen different companies before you bought them all, had them shipped to your house and built the rifle. Intent or desire magically transforms a perfectly legal item that can be used for numerous applications into a forbidden and evil entity. Like holding a firearm with two hands redesigns and re-engineers it! CLOWN WORLD. |
|
|
|
I submitted one on the 11th. Haven't heard anything back yet. When did everyone submit theirs?
|
|
|
Quoted: There is no where on a Form 1 to put anything concerning what is being used to make the suppressor. I have never bought anything from Diversified Machine. View Quote |
|
Quoted: Just spit-balling here, I was thinking maybe ATF is matching names to confiscated records. Doesn't seem to be the case. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: Quoted: There is no where on a Form 1 to put anything concerning what is being used to make the suppressor. I have never bought anything from Diversified Machine. I had the same exact thought. Doesn’t seem to be any rhyme or reason. |
|
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.