Help Support Long Range Hunting Forum
This. I already sent letters to my representatives telling them enough is enough when it comes to increased pressure, bending, reinterpretation and flat out infringements upon our second amendment RIGHTS. They need to do something, and so do all of us.
The Form 1 rejections are happening now, to my knowledge they aren't going back in time and reversing previously stamped Form 1s. They seem to be rejecting ALL new Form 1s under the theory that all parts used fall under the NFA and are being sold by the original vendor illegally.
80% lowers are hack workaround of the law. Everyone with an iota of common sense sees an 80% and knows it's something that only exists to subvert the intent of firearms manufacturing laws. It's not like 80% lowers are commonly turned into potted plant holders, it's very obviously and transparently 80% of a firearm and marketed as something that requires a minimal amount of effort to turn into a firearm. Separate uppers and lowers themselves are ambiguous and are subject to the whims of ATF regulations. Solvent traps are a transparent attempt to subvert the intent of the law, the ATF just went along with it for awhile.
This isn't actually happening? I'm not aware of a single, processed, validly stamped Form 1 or Form 4 being retroactively revoked. These are newly filed Form 1s being denied. The issue is the ATF is stating (very clearly) that the Form 1 can't be used to "manufacture" something that is already that thing, and should have been transferred on a Form 4 to the current owner of the parts.
Bump stocks were never an NFA item? They always existed through the largess of ATF regulations, the same way AR pistol braces exist. Just because people have a misconception that regulations can't change doesn't change reality. If the ATF decided to ban pistol braces tomorrow, that would be entirely within their purview. And I'd be sitting there laughing at all the people who really thought that ATF was stupid enough to not know exactly what a "pistol brace" is. You know it, I know it, they know it, everyone who's honest will admit a pistol brace is a workaround of the SBR language in 18 USC 921.
Yeah, that's literally the law. Like the actual, passed by Congress legitimate law, at Title 18, Section 921(a)(21):
No see, you're again making this jump to things that haven't happened yet. No one is saying that my TBAC Ultra 7, built by a SOT 2 licensed manufacturer, then transferred on various Form 3s then ultimately to me on a Form 4 is anything other than a silencer. It has been, and always will be, and NFA item that came into being when manufactured by the SOT 2 licensee.
You go ahead and believe what you want to believe, and when you get a letter/e-mail stating you must turn in or destroy your form 4 then maybe you will believe.The Form 1 rejections are happening now, to my knowledge they aren't going back in time and reversing previously stamped Form 1s. They seem to be rejecting ALL new Form 1s under the theory that all parts used fall under the NFA and are being sold by the original vendor illegally.
There might be an argument to recategorize some previously approved Form 1s if the underlying manufacture was performed by a non-licensed company and the ATF is claiming the item was never legal in the first place, but that would be the fault of the unlicensed company illegally selling silencers, anyone who gets a Form 1 reversed should sue them.
80% lowers are hack workaround of the law. Everyone with an iota of common sense sees an 80% and knows it's something that only exists to subvert the intent of firearms manufacturing laws. It's not like 80% lowers are commonly turned into potted plant holders, it's very obviously and transparently 80% of a firearm and marketed as something that requires a minimal amount of effort to turn into a firearm. Separate uppers and lowers themselves are ambiguous and are subject to the whims of ATF regulations. Solvent traps are a transparent attempt to subvert the intent of the law, the ATF just went along with it for awhile.
Why can the ATF just suddenly change their mind? That's because Congress hasn't acted to change the law, so the very people that you're complaining to when you contact your representative are the ones acquiescing to the ATF regulatory state because they're quite literally the people who could write better laws, yet choose not to. Why don't they chose to write better laws? Why doesn't the representative you sent to Congress do that for you? Shifting regulatory interpretation is only a problem because Congress sucks at writing laws and is actively investing authority in executive agencies. Blame them.
This isn't actually happening? I'm not aware of a single, processed, validly stamped Form 1 or Form 4 being retroactively revoked. These are newly filed Form 1s being denied. The issue is the ATF is stating (very clearly) that the Form 1 can't be used to "manufacture" something that is already that thing, and should have been transferred on a Form 4 to the current owner of the parts.
Generally retroactive applications of law that result in a taking (meaning you had to surrender something with a validly stamped Form 1) requires the government to compensate you, so in theory if a Form 1 was revoked and a silencer had to be surrendered then the ATF would have to pay you at least the cost of the parts, and maybe the cost of the stamp also. If anyone is made whole for the retroactive change, what injury do they suffer?
Bump stocks were never an NFA item? They always existed through the largess of ATF regulations, the same way AR pistol braces exist. Just because people have a misconception that regulations can't change doesn't change reality. If the ATF decided to ban pistol braces tomorrow, that would be entirely within their purview. And I'd be sitting there laughing at all the people who really thought that ATF was stupid enough to not know exactly what a "pistol brace" is. You know it, I know it, they know it, everyone who's honest will admit a pistol brace is a workaround of the SBR language in 18 USC 921.
Ironically, a Mossberg Shockwave is one of the most transparent attempts to bypass the intent of the NFA, yet is also the least likely to be subject to recharacterization because the dimensions of the thing are carefully set to meet the AOW requirements of the actual law. The ATF doesn't get to alter the code section via regulation because the code section contains specific measurements.
Yeah, that's literally the law. Like the actual, passed by Congress legitimate law, at Title 18, Section 921(a)(21):
18 U.S. Code § 921 - Definitions
www.law.cornell.edu
Take it up with the Supreme Court about if that provision is ambiguous or not, or ask your Congress critter to write a less-stupid law, either way that's the black ink on the white paper. The current state of administrative law in the US would defer to the regulations written by the ATF to resolve that ambiguity, which are the same as the regs that allowed bump stocks right up until they didnt.
No see, you're again making this jump to things that haven't happened yet. No one is saying that my TBAC Ultra 7, built by a SOT 2 licensed manufacturer, then transferred on various Form 3s then ultimately to me on a Form 4 is anything other than a silencer. It has been, and always will be, and NFA item that came into being when manufactured by the SOT 2 licensee.
That is a separate and distinct fact pattern from this "Form 1 Denial Issue". The root of that is that the ATF is denying Form 1s from individual manufacturers saying a previously purchased Form 1 kit (and the semantically silly alternative of "solvent trap") cannot be manufactured into a silencer by an individual on a Form 1, because the parts purchased to manufacture that item were themselves already NFA items, and were illegally manufactured by, then transferred from a non-SOT license holder to the manufacturing individual, who now possesses them illegally.
If TBAC cuts a baffle and magically makes an ATF silencer part that's actually a silencer and the law at 18 USC 921 is ambiguous, that's fine because 18 USC 923 kicks in that says that since TBAC is in the business of manufacturing silencers they have to follow the law for manufacturers, which states as long as they paid their $1,000 SOT 2 tax they're gravy to manufacturer whatever the heck they want to, assemble it however they want to, and serialize whatever combination makes them happy, so long as they transfer it out on the correct form.
If Quietbore had a SOT2 and Form 4'd all of their kits out the door this situation wouldn't exist. What's happened here is the 'crats put in place by the people we all elected decided to stop smiling and winking as the wrote the regs.
I've seen zero proof of that. Plenty of proof of denied Form 1s, plenty of scary letters from the ATF to people who bought "solvent trap kits", zero actual proof of a Form 1 or Form 4 being invalidated.
If only there was an avenue for recourse against an executive interpretation of a law written by the legislature. Maybe through a co-equal, third branch of government?
The Form 1 to Form 4 jump here is where you're going off the rails with your slippery slope argument. A Form 4 doesn't just pop up when someone decides to buy an item, it's several steps down the list, and all of those steps had to go correctly before it got to the Form 4. Form 1 is a one-and-done form. Form 4 only comes after a Form 2 and maybe a Form 3. So long as the SOT2 was actually a SOT2, filed a Form 2, then transferred on a Form 3 or Form 4, there is no illegal transfer.
That's a spurious argument, the SOT 2 has to file a Form 2 that notifies ATF of each manufactured item. The completed item they're transferring on a Form 3 or Form 4 is a firearm, and was reported on a Form 2 when manufactured. There's no Form 1 in this process. That's where you keep going off. The SOT2 -> FFL -> Form 4 process is different from the Not-Firearm-Vendor -> Guy -> Form 1 process in that is starts with an SOT.
Incorrect, the QD suppressor mount does not by itself conform to 18 USC 921(a)(24) in that it has no capability for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm.
That is what the ATF seems to be building towards, BUT to my knowledge it hasn't actually happened. The official line from ATF is that they're illegal so contact the office. People who have directly contacted their ATF office with a valid Form 1 have been told they're ok.
The starting point here matters. The ATF can issue determination letters to manufacturers. The Mossberg Shockwave is a good example case because it's based on the statute and not on ATF regs:
IMO bump stocks and pistol braces are the perfect example of us all thinking we're fine while the ATF is winking at us, knowing they plan to change their minds with a shift in political winds. That's why relying on statutory authority over the ATF regulatory authority is important. The distinction between DM not being a SOT/FFL and SiCo or TBAC being a SOT/FFL is critically important because SOT/FFLs have statutory backing that ultimately forces ATF to interpret the statue instead of having broad regulatory authority. Courts can review the competing interpretations of the law, and that's a better place to be than arguing over an agency reg covering something not explicitly in the statute. This entire concept of deferring to the regulatory agency over vagueness in a law is called Chevron Deference, and 6 of 9 SCOTUS seats are somewhere between unhappy and openly hostile to that concept.
www.scotusblog.com
www.scotusblog.com
Elections have consequences, right? (f that guy haha) So do court cases, and that sword cuts both ways just like elections do.
They can change their minds all they want to, there's already case law against them, case law they notionally won even, and all that stacks the deck worse against them.
