Mass EF1 denials happening

surrealone said:
Sure ... they can try that angle. However, the property was legal at the time it was obtained .. and, in this hypotethical situation, only retroactively deemed illegal [thereby creating a regulatory taking] due to a (new/re-)interpretation of a term by a governmental agency. In such case, the regulatory taking of property that was completely legal ... and lawfully obtained while completely legal ... requires 'just compensation' under the 5th Amendment. Since they will have taken a 'machine gun' (per their own revised definition), the compensation one should reasonably seek is the amount required to replace what's been taken ... which means the value of a machine gun, all paperwork, and all taxes (plus attorney's fees) ... since that's what it would take to replace what was originally legally obtained ... and then seized via the regulatory taking. (Add in damages for the violation of one's civil rights, too, of course.)

That's a legal fight worth having ... to set a precedent for which we have a dire need. After all, a precedent that says the government (state or federal) must pay for 2A-related things they retroactively ban ... will make entities think twice about enacting such bans, as there are likely more guns than there are coffers with which to pay for them.

The bump stock ban situation is worth watching, as it could set precedent here, as property loss associated with the ATF's reversal on that front is estimated to be over $100M in privately owned assets. (Reference for the dollar figure in this article: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-...-Bump-Stock-Ban-to-Resolve-Circuit-Split.html)
Click to expand...
The ATF did something kinda sorta similar with the Akins Accelerator (over $1000 stock adapter but used a spring to functionally in its reset) … “okayed” in 2002 by the ATF then in 2006 it was reviewed and deemed a “machine gun” like the bump stock. The case was argued and appealed until 2009 when the final court ruling said the Akins owners were SOL … turn in the devices (or just the spring assembly) … and you do not get 1¢ for the “amended” view of the device. If things go south on these case bumpstock owners won’t get their couple hundred bucks nor will the forced reset trigger owners.

As to the brace vs SBR thing if the ATF pushed the 4999 form brace owners won’t be out “hardware” … they just cant have a brace setup that gives features that the ATF wants to claim are SBR like. Owners won’t have to turn in uppers or folding adapters or such … they just would not be able to legally have ‘em all together without a $200 tax stamp.
 
NCFubar said:
The ATF did something kinda sorta similar with the Akins Accelerator (over $1000 stock adapter but used a spring to functionally in its reset) … “okayed” in 2002 by the ATF then in 2006 it was reviewed and deemed a “machine gun” like the bump stock. The case was argued and appealed until 2009 when the final court ruling said the Akins owners were SOL … turn in the devices (or just the spring assembly) … and you do not get 1¢ for the “amended” view of the device. If things go south on these case bumpstock owners won’t get their couple hundred bucks nor will the forced reset trigger owners.

As to the brace vs SBR thing if the ATF pushed the 4999 form brace owners won’t be out “hardware” … they just cant have a brace setup that gives features that the ATF wants to claim are SBR like. Owners won’t have to turn in uppers or folding adapters or such … they just would not be able to legally have ‘em all together without a $200 tax stamp.
Click to expand...
Yea, I remember the Akins Accelerator. You bring up a good point with that case, since it was a 5th Amendment case, too ... one that ultimately failed in a Federal Claims Court because, as the plaintiff, Akins had an obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief ... and he failed to do that. He basically failed to demonstrate the 'public use' for which the private property was being taken, and the government responded by indicating that property seized and retained pursuant to a police power is not taken for a 'public use' in the context of the Takings Clause ... and went on to cite that the police power doctrine applies where the government acts in order "to protect the general health, safety, and welfare of its citizens". I argue that had Akins come with his guns loaded ... citing the 'public use' was 'alleged, unproven public safety' ... from something that had never been used in a crime and, thus, wasn't a threat to the general (key word: 'general') health, safety, and welfare of citizens, he likely could have prevailed.

Bump stocks, themselves, have seen use in very few crimes, so while they entailed a threat in a specific few cases, they still don't constitute a threat to "the general health, safety, and welfare" of citizens. Key word, again: 'general'.

Citizens don't need to be kept safe from things that aren't actual, proven threats to 'the general health, safety, and welfare' of citizens. IMHO, that's the winning angle which dodges a taking pursuant to a police power (which was successfull used against Akins) for braces, bump stocks, FRT's, and the like ... should it come to that.

Keep in mind, this isn't legal advice and I'm not an attorney (and I didn't stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, either)...


The Form 4999 stuff is creepy to me because I'm concerned that if/when it becomes official the ATF will allot an idiotic 90 day window ... knowing their processing times will spike and that 90 days won't be enough. (i.e. More potential overnight felons due to the ATF reinterpreting things.)
 
Last edited:
surrealone said:
Sure ... they can try that angle. However, the property was legal at the time it was obtained .. and, in this hypotethical situation, only retroactively deemed illegal [thereby creating a regulatory taking] due to a (new/re-)interpretation of a term by a governmental agency. In such case, the regulatory taking of property that was completely legal ... and lawfully obtained while completely legal ... requires 'just compensation' under the 5th Amendment. Since they will have taken a 'machine gun' (per their own revised definition), the compensation one should reasonably seek is the amount required to replace what's been taken ... which means the value of a machine gun, all paperwork, and all taxes (plus attorney's fees) ... since that's what it would take to replace what was originally legally obtained ... and then seized via the regulatory taking. (Add in damages for the violation of one's civil rights, too, of course.)

That's a legal fight worth having ... to set a precedent for which we have a dire need. After all, a precedent that says the government (state or federal) must pay for 2A-related things they retroactively ban ... will make entities think twice about enacting such bans, as there are likely more guns than there are coffers with which to pay for them.

The bump stock ban situation is worth watching, as it could set precedent here, as property loss associated with the ATF's reversal on that front is estimated to be over $100M in privately owned assets. (Reference for the dollar figure in this article: https://www.globenewswire.com/news-...-Bump-Stock-Ban-to-Resolve-Circuit-Split.html)
Click to expand...
Their position is that it was never legal and that solvent traps as silencer core material were never legal either. .
 
NCFubar said:
The ATF did something kinda sorta similar with the Akins Accelerator (over $1000 stock adapter but used a spring to functionally in its reset) … “okayed” in 2002 by the ATF then in 2006 it was reviewed and deemed a “machine gun” like the bump stock. The case was argued and appealed until 2009 when the final court ruling said the Akins owners were SOL … turn in the devices (or just the spring assembly) … and you do not get 1¢ for the “amended” view of the device. If things go south on these case bumpstock owners won’t get their couple hundred bucks nor will the forced reset trigger owners.

As to the brace vs SBR thing if the ATF pushed the 4999 form brace owners won’t be out “hardware” … they just cant have a brace setup that gives features that the ATF wants to claim are SBR like. Owners won’t have to turn in uppers or folding adapters or such … they just would not be able to legally have ‘em all together without a $200 tax stamp.
Click to expand...
Akins submitted a sample to the ATF and was approved because quite frankly it didnt work. Then he redesigned it for an different gun and released that one .
 
This developing nightmare is a perfect example of why one shouldn't ask the government for permission to do something which is a constitutionally protected right.
 
Last edited:
DuncanLempRIP said:
This developing nightmare is a perfect example of why one shouldn't ask the government for permission to do something which is a constitutionally protected right.
Click to expand...
Well, its not really an option. If you had said "Shouldn't have to ask" Yeah sure I'd agree but "shouldn't ask" ? That would be tantamount to committing a felony and while thats all good in concept Ive known 8 people in my life who thought that was a good idea too. More that that really but 8 got caught . 7 went to federal prison and one skipped the country to Thailand where's been for around 20 years now. I know , most people dont get caught and the chances are slim but public ranges are what they are . I have no desire to go to federal prison so I buy a LOT of stamps.
 
Last edited:
wired said:
That would be tantamount to committing a felony
Click to expand...
You're missing the point, which is that for anyone making suppressors, the ATF has now arbitrarily decided that you are committing a "felony" by doing it the way they told you to do it (bribing them and submitting a form); additionally, they have now put you on a list of "felons", released your information to their field goons, and they are asking you to upload photographic evidence of your "felony". Are you really proposing that that situation is better than building the suppressor and NOT telling them what it is you're doing? To believe that, one would have to believe these people are fatherly figures who reward "truth-telling" (as if you owe them a damn thing in the first place!), rather than the treasonous jackals that they are.

Seems to me either you are categorized as a "felon" or you don't exercise your rights at all. If you're going to be a felon regardless, what is the advantage of giving your oppressors your hard-earned money and your personal information in order to be put on a shortlist of arrest targets?
 
Last edited:
DuncanLempRIP said:
You're missing the point, which is that for anyone making suppressors, the ATF has now arbitrarily decided that you are committing a "felony" by doing it the way they told you to do it (bribing them and submitting a form); additionally, they have now put you on a list of "felons", released your information to their field goons, and they are asking you to upload photographic evidence of your "felony". Are you really proposing that that situation is better than building the suppressor and NOT telling them what it is you're doing? To believe that, one would have to believe these people are fatherly figures who reward "truth-telling" (as if you owe them a damn thing in the first place!), rather than the treasonous jackals that they are.

Seems to me either you are categorized as a "felon" or you don't exercise your rights at all. If you're going to be a felon regardless, what is the advantage of giving your oppressors your hard-earned money and your personal information in order to be put on a shortlist of arrest targets?
Click to expand...
Well, they never did say that the parts that have been sold as "solvent traps" or "sauce cups" or whatever cutesy names people have come up with in the last decade, not to mention threaded tubs and end caps , were legal. They were NOT legal before and they , according to the recent actions of the ATF, are still not legal and at no time did they change anything in the letters of the law. They have just gotten back to enforcing the law. Whenever I hear someone say that we dont need new gun laws we just need to enforce the laws we have now I do a big old face palm. I'm not sure folks know what that means.

They are not asking you for photographic evidence of a felony. What they are asking for is to see what it is you are going to be building your silencer with. If its anything but bare tubing and round stock they are going to say no and deny your form 1. If you are stupid enough to send them pics of solvent traps and threaded tube and end caps then yeah, maybe theyre going to come visit. So dont do that.
 
wired said:
Well, they never did say that the parts that have been sold as "solvent traps" or "sauce cups" or whatever cutesy names people have come up with in the last decade, not to mention threaded tubs and end caps , were legal. They were NOT legal before and they , according to the recent actions of the ATF, are still not legal and at no time did they change anything in the letters of the law. They have just gotten back to enforcing the law. Whenever I hear someone say that we dont need new gun laws we just need to enforce the laws we have now I do a big old face palm. I'm not sure folks know what that means.

They are not asking you for photographic evidence of a felony. What they are asking for is to see what it is you are going to be building your silencer with. If its anything but bare tubing and round stock they are going to say no and deny your form 1. If you are stupid enough to send them pics of solvent traps and threaded tube and end caps then yeah, maybe theyre going to come visit. So dont do that.
Click to expand...
Solvent traps are legal, even within the unconstitutional boundaries of the NFA. The parts are not a silencer/suppressor, nor can they be assembled into one unless they are fundamentally modified. If you don't believe me, order a solvent trap, screw it onto your AR, and try to shoot through it without modifying it (it won't work like a silencer, to say the least, nor will it subsequently fulfill its original purpose of trapping solvents).

The only reason the ATF would have, using their unconstitutionally-given NFA enforcement authority, to deny your Form 1 on your solvent trap is if the solvent trap is, in fact, already a suppressor (it's not, but that's what they claim). If so, that means they 100% consider you to be a felon, in felony possession of an unregistered suppressor. If they weren't claiming that to be the case, then there would be no reason to deny the form 1. I really don't understand your argument that this is somehow not what's really going on. The verbiage of the letters people have received makes it very clear.

"Upon review of the EFORM 1 application, the part from which you intend to make a silencer already meets the NFA's 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."
 
Last edited:
DuncanLempRIP said:
Solvent traps are legal, even under the unconstitutional NFA. The parts are not a silencer/suppressor, nor can they be assembled into one unless they are fundamentally modified. If you don't believe me, order a solvent trap, screw it onto your AR, and try to shoot through it without modifying it (it won't work like a silencer, to say the least).

The only reason the ATF would have, using their unconstitutionally-given NFA enforcement authority, to deny your Form 1 on your solvent trap is if the solvent trap is, in fact, already a suppressor (it's not, but that's what they claim). If so, that means they 100% consider you to be a felon, in felony possession of an unregistered suppressor. If they weren't claiming that to be the case, then there would be no reason to deny the form 1. I really don't understand your argument that this is somehow not what's really going on. The verbiage of the letters people have received makes it very clear.
Click to expand...
Lets try this again. According to the ATF , who is a branch of the government that regulates these things Solvent Traps ARE silencers and if you have them they are contraband silencers and cannot be used to build a legal silencer on a form 1. . They dont care if you agree with that decision or not. That is the state as it exists right now.
What they are sayin in their verbiage is that they will not approve form 1's for silencers that are built with solvent traps because those are already contraband silencers. Their rules. Its the same thing if you find an old SBR from the 1920's that was never amnesty registered . You cannot register it on a form 1. It is contraband.

If they claim its a silencer they are the government body who will prosecute you for the possession of it. You can argue that the NFA is unconstitutional all the way to jail.

When they ask for pics of what you are building a sielncer with they want pics of tube and bar stock. You dont even need to have them . On my recent form 1 to build a silencer that I get the letter back on the other day they asked to see the materials I'm buiding it out of so I sent them links to McMaster Carr and Metals direct who sell tube and bar stock. I sent them pics of my lathe and my mill. Thats what they want to see and I can play their game. Maybe my silencer will get build from those materials.
 
Last edited:
The unconstitutionality of the NFA is a separate argument, one layer up from the primary point I was making. I just like mentioning the unconstitutionality of the NFA (and, therefore, of the ATF) as a reminder of how many layers deep we have fallen into the death-spiral of our legal system.

What the ATF is doing is not just unconstitutional, it is also a violation of the actual legal statute upon which their existence depends. We have reached the point at which the traitors at the ATF are declaring people to be felons through completely extralegal means, and yet using the force of law to harass and imprison people. Today your solvent trap was arbitrarily declared to be a silencer, tomorrow it is whatever scrap metal the ATF goon finds in your garage when he illegally searches it because you said something he doesn't like on Facebook. When bureaucrats make the law, YOU DO NOT HAVE A LEGAL SYSTEM ANYMORE. Period. It is no different from the systems implemented in the Soviet Union, where you would be targeted, arrested, and sentenced to 10 years, and the arresting agents would retroactively define the crime.

My point is, now that we as a nation have crossed the threshold into a realm in which the definition of a federal felony is synonymous with the whims of unelected bureaucrats, why would you give them money and put yourself on the shortlist to have your activities declared to be felonious tomorrow?

wired said:
Thats what they want to see and I can play their game.
Click to expand...

Until they arbitrarily change the rules again and make you a felon, because your "game" (a constitutional republic) ceased to exist the moment you accepted their premise by playing their "game".
 
Last edited:
DuncanLempRIP said:
The unconstitutionality of the NFA is a separate argument, one layer up from the primary point I was making. I just like mentioning the unconstitutionality of the NFA (and, therefore, of the ATF) as a reminder of how many layers deep we have fallen into the death-spiral of our legal system.

What the ATF is doing is not just unconstitutional, it is also a violation of the actual legal statute upon which their existence depends. We have reached the point at which the traitors at the ATF are declaring people to be felons through completely extralegal means, and yet using the force of law to harass and imprison people. Today your solvent trap was arbitrarily declared to be a silencer, tomorrow it is whatever scrap metal the ATF goon finds in your garage when he illegally searches it because you said something he doesn't like on Facebook. When bureaucrats make the law, YOU DO NOT HAVE A LEGAL SYSTEM ANYMORE. Period. It is no different from the systems implemented in the Soviet Union, where you would be targeted, arrested, and sentenced to 10 years, and the arresting agents would retroactively define the crime.

My point is, now that we as a nation have crossed the threshold into a realm in which the definition of a federal felony is synonymous with the whims of unelected bureaucrats, why would you give them money and put yourself on the shortlist to have your activities declared to be felonious tomorrow?
Click to expand...

Your argument isnt going to sway the ATF from hauling you to jail. Your lawyer will counsel you not to bring that up in your sentencing hearing. Your solvent trap was NEVER declared to be anything but a silencer part. Lets be real. Its a silencer part. It has no other use. It doesnt have a hole through the center but its still a silencer part. If I take a silencer and fill it full of molten lead guess what, its still a silencer. They didnt bother with it for a long time but there was a time really not that long ago when that threaded tube was a contraband silencer. Folks went to jail over stuff like that. After Waco and Ruby Ridge and Oklahoma City the ATF was told to back off and they did for a long time. Theyre back.
 
Not only can it not be used as a silencer without fundamentally modifying it by putting a hole in the end, but it can also serve to catch cleaning fluids (look up videos if you don't believe me, or just try it yourself). Is it the best tool for cleaning your gun? No, but that certainly doesn't change the fact that it can be used for such a purpose and is not a silencer. Try to use a silencer to catch your cleaning fluids. They'll run right through it and splatter all over the floor.

Is some bureaucrat going to declare lithium batteries illegal tomorrow because you could shoot one to make it explode? How about fertilizer that could be used to make a bomb? The premise in whose favor you are arguing has no fundamental limits as to how it could be used to oppress and imprison people who have committed no crime by any statutory definition. It is nothing more than abject tyranny. A philosophy of "Unelected goon with badge says I can't do it, so I can't do it" does not a functioning legal system make.
 
DuncanLempRIP said:
Not only can it not be used as a silencer without fundamentally modifying it by putting a hole in the end, but it can also serve to catch cleaning fluids (look up videos if you don't believe me, or just try it yourself). Is it the best tool for cleaning your gun? No, but that certainly doesn't change the fact that it can be used for such a purpose and is not a silencer. Try to use a silencer to catch your cleaning fluids. They'll run right through it and splatter all over the floor.

Is some bureaucrat going to declare lithium batteries illegal tomorrow because you could shoot one to make it explode? How about fertilizer that could be used to make a bomb? The premise in whose favor you are arguing has no fundamental limits as to how it could be used to oppress and imprison people who have committed no crime by any statutory definition. It is nothing more than abject tyranny. A philosophy of "Unelected goon with badge says I can't do it, so I can't do it" does not a functioning legal system make.
Click to expand...

If you buy the fertilizer with the intent of building a bomb then its illegal. Same fertilizer. If you buy a solvent trap with the intent of making a silencer out of it guess what? You have proven you have the intent by showing them pics of a solvent trap that you want to build into a silencer. Thats is exactly what they are saying. You're coming at it from the perspective of it shouldn't be illegal. I'm coming at it from the perspective of OK, how do I get around the legal roadblocks and still get what I want.
 
I think they will mostly get their way on this, but it does seem that there might be an argument that if anything can be a suppressor that the law is overly broad and arbitrary.

I don’t have the money for the supreme court challenge.
 
wired said:
If you buy a solvent trap with the intent of making a silencer out of it guess what? You have proven you have the intent by showing them pics of a solvent trap that you want to build into a silencer.
Click to expand...
Exactly, which is why I am arguing people should eschew the whole form 1 racket, which is clearly only designed to entrap people so that false felony charges can be brought.
wired said:
You're coming at it from the perspective of it shouldn't be illegal. I'm coming at it from the perspective of OK, how do I get around the legal roadblocks and still get what I want.
Click to expand...
I'm saying it isn't illegal, and you have criminals, pretending to be law enforcement agents of a constitutional republic, who are working to kidnap and imprison people that they don't like, but who have broken no law.
 
DuncanLempRIP said:
Exactly, which is why I am arguing people should eschew the whole form 1 racket, which is clearly only designed to entrap people so that false felony charges can be brought.

I'm saying it isn't illegal, and you have criminals, pretending to be law enforcement agents of a constitutional republic, who are working to kidnap and imprison people that they don't like, but who have broken no law.
Click to expand...
Im not sure either of those arguments is a valid means of proceeding.
 
JimB said:
I think they will mostly get their way on this, but it does seem that there might be an argument that if anything can be a suppressor that the law is overly broad and arbitrary.

I don’t have the money for the supreme court challenge.
Click to expand...

They have been quite clear on this. The only way you get to build a silencer is if you are actually building the silencer and not just drilling holes in a prefabbed silencer baffle.
 
Fred said:
Let's hypothetically say that someone Form 1'd a suppressor last year, before all this nonsense, with solvent trap parts never ruled illegal. Even though you did it with things never known to be illegal, you're still a felon. They can arrest you at any time. You owned suppressor parts before you Form 1ed them. The existence of the serial numbered Form 1 suppressor made with solvent trap parts(or any parts) IS the proof of the crime, not the exculpatory evidence, and they can prosecute you under this interpretation of the law at any time.

If you were going to Form 1 a can last year, you might as well have not registered it. You would still be subject to prosecution if they want to prosecute you, you just wouldn't be on the ATF's list of known felons that they have a slam dunk case to prosecute at any time.

Fear of being on these lists is why I've never gotten NFA items, and it looks like I'm being proven right.
Click to expand...
This guy gets it. I regret even getting a carry permit and paying via credit card for my guns. Should have gone all cash and private sale.
 
Last edited:
Fred said:
Let's hypothetically say that someone Form 1'd a suppressor last year, before all this nonsense, with solvent trap parts never ruled illegal. Even though you did it with things never known to be illegal, you're still a felon. They can arrest you at any time. You owned suppressor parts before you Form 1ed them. The existence of the serial numbered Form 1 suppressor made with solvent trap parts(or any parts) IS the proof of the crime, not the exculpatory evidence, and they can prosecute you under this interpretation of the law at any time.

If you were going to Form 1 a can last year, you might as well have not registered it. You would still be subject to prosecution if they want to prosecute you, you just wouldn't be on the ATF's list of known felons that they have a slam dunk case to prosecute at any time.

Fear of being on these lists is why I've never gotten NFA items, and it looks like I was right. I was tempted to get a kit and a Form 1, and I'm glad I didn't.
Click to expand...
That is entirely possible. Its extraordinally unlikely but its possible. Lots of stuff is possible. Right now they are saying that they arent going to approve new forms unless its a ffrom scratch build. Thats all theyve said. I think people are reading WAY too much into this.
 
That is most definitely not all they have said. They have explicitly claimed in their letter that the person receiving the denial is already a felon in possession of a suppressor (literally claiming it as the reason for the denial), and they have also shared the information on these individuals with their field agents.
 
Last edited:
DuncanLempRIP said:
That is most definitely not all they have said. They have explicitly claimed in their letter that the person receiving the denial is already a felon in possession of a suppressor (literally claiming it as the reason for the denial), and they have also shared the information on these individuals with their field agents.
Click to expand...

Please point out in the following statement from the ATF you are referencing where it says what you claim.


"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)."
 
wired said:
Please point out in the following statement from the ATF you are referencing where it says what you claim.


"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)."
Click to expand...
"THE PART FROM WHICH YOU INTEND TO MAKE A SILENCER ALREADY MEETS THE NFAS DEFINITION OF SILENCER" ... "NFA DIVISION NOTES THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR YOU TO POSSESS A SILENCER MADE OR TRANSFERRED IN VIOLATION OF THE NFA..."



www.ammoland.com

ATF Moving The Goal Post: Requires Photos & Supplier Info for Home Built Silencers

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives (ATF) stepped up its war against 80% Silencer Kits. Requiring makers to rat out suppliers of hearing protection parts.
www.ammoland.com www.ammoland.com

^ "AmmoLand News recently reported about the rejection of approximately 850 applications out of 3000 submitted by Americans that wanted to build their own suppressors. Those 850 rejected applications were sent to local field offices for further investigation because the ATF believed that the parts constituted an unregistered suppressor."
 
Last edited:
DuncanLempRIP said:
"THE PART FROM WHICH YOU INTEND TO MAKE A SILENCER ALREADY MEETS THE NFAS DEFINITION OF SILENCER" ... "NFA DIVISION NOTES THAT IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR YOU TO POSSESS A SILENCER MADE OR TRANSFERRED IN VIOLATION OF THE NFA..."
Click to expand...


Yes, They turned it down because its already a silencer. It does NOT say ..

"and they have also shared the information on these individuals with their field agents."
 
Last edited:
wired said:
Yes, They turned it down because its already a silencer. It does NOT say ..

"and they have also shared the information on these individuals with their field agents."
Click to expand...
John Crump is legit (director of GOA Virginia chapter), and he reported it in Ammoland. I believe he has connections anonymously leaking info to him, hence why no ATF agent was named as the source of the internal communications.
 
Last edited:
DuncanLempRIP said:
John Crump is legit (director of GOA Virginia chapter), and he reported it in Ammoland.
Click to expand...


Is the GOA a division of the ATF? No, They are a fund raising advocacy organization.

Yes, the ATF screwed up and sent a letter out without ANY evidence that the people they sent letters to were doing anything other than using the approved items to build silencers with. That was stupid and from a prosecution standpoint even if they were going to alert their filed agents they really blew it. Thats like sending letter out to drug dealers telling them they were going to get raided next Tuesday.

The ATF followed up their idiot letter by stating on the efile website what they would allow. Anyone been raided? Any field agents left the donut shop? No.
 
Last edited:
wired said:
Is the GOA a division of the ATF? No, They are a fund raising advocacy organization.

Yes, the ATF screwed up and sent a letter out without ANY evidence that the people they sent letters to were doing anything other than using the approved items to build silencers with. That was stupid and from a prosecution standpoint even if they were going to alert their filed agents they really blew it. Thats like sending letter out to drug dealers telling them they were going to get raided next Tuesday.

The ATF folled up their idiot letter by statig on the efile website what they would allow. Anyone been raided? Any field agents left the donut shop? No.
Click to expand...
What is your point? That it's only intimidation of innocents rather than arrests this time, so it's no big deal? Is this how the government is supposed to interact with the people it is "serving"? Or does it look more like mafia tactics?

Next year, after they've scared away 90% of people who wanted to build a suppressor by repurposing parts from a solvent trap, they might then leave the donut shop and say "We warned you all! No excuses now when we actually arrest you", even though the arrest is just as illegitimate as it would have been the year prior. This is clearly the game plan, we are just arguing over the timeline.
 
Last edited:
DuncanLempRIP said:
What is your point? That it's only intimidation of innocents rather than arrests this time, so it's no big deal? Is this how the government is supposed to interact with the people it is "serving"? Or does it look more like mafia tactics?
Click to expand...
I dont drive more than 10 MPH over the speed limit because the State Patrol intimidates me. Usually I get pulled over and they dont give me a ticket because I am a veteran and it says so on my license. I get out of a lot of tickets. Meanwhile the guy behind me gets a ticket. Same offense. If I do get a ticket I can get out of the points by putting down a contribution to the police benevolent society. Had that happen. So yeah, That is how government works.
 
wired said:
I dont drive more than 10 MPH over the speed limit because the State Patrol intimidates me. Usually I get pulled over and they dont give me a ticket because I am a veteran and it says so on my license. I get out of a lot of tickets. Meanwhile the guy behind me gets a ticket. Same offense. If I do get a ticket I can get out of the points by putting down a contribution to the police benevolent society. Had that happen. So yeah, That is how government works.
Click to expand...
I do appreciate your military service. With that said, I will still say that you may want to examine the principles which serve as the foundation for the United States of America and your relationship with those principles. The ideas of our country's founders were quite contradictory to "how government worked" at in all other civilizations at that time, and it is the fact that those principles were defended and enshrined in the form of a new nation that protects your right to own any firearm whatsoever, even if protection of that right has been diluted by the rapidly-metastasizing oppressive schemes we're facing today. If those men espoused the attitude that I am hearing from you, we would literally not have this country today, nor would there be an online firearms forum, because such things would be illegal.

To do nothing more than shrug and say "that is how government works" before going to pay the fee that fundamentally transforms your rights into government-issued privileges, or bribe the sheriff to let you off your speeding ticket, or otherwise undermine the premises of our republic, is fundamentally unamerican; it is to be a moral agnostic, a person who may have vague, inherited notions of right and wrong, but one who generally feels no more passion for such issues than might be felt for the next superhero movie or the upcoming football game on TV.

All of us, including myself, succumb to the pressure of abiding evil and even committing it from time to time, but when it happens, it should feel wrong, not like a shoulder-shrug moment. Ambivalence towards evil is a far greater problem than the existence of evil in this world, because societal ambivalence is what helps evil to fester. Personally, I think the existence and growth of a system to eliminate my God-given right to self-defense (and, eventually, destroy the greatest nation to ever exist) demands more attention than just about anything else in this world. You may not feel as passionately about that as I do, but you are sure as heck not going to convince me that I am being ridiculous or unreasonable in calling out evil, fighting against it, and encouraging other people to do the same.
 
DuncanLempRIP said:
I do appreciate your military service. With that said, I will still say that you may want to examine the principles which serve as the foundation for the United States of America and your relationship with those principles. The ideas of our country's founders were quite contradictory to "how government worked" at in all other civilizations at that time, and it is the fact that those principles were defended and enshrined in the form of a new nation that protects your right to own any firearm whatsoever, even if protection of that right has been diluted by the rapidly-metastasizing oppressive schemes we're facing today. If those men espoused the attitude that I am hearing from you, we would literally not have this country today, nor would there be an online firearms forum, because such things would be illegal.

To do nothing more than shrug and say "that is how government works" before going to pay the fee that fundamentally transforms your rights into government-issued privileges, or bribe the sheriff to let you off your speeding ticket, or otherwise undermine the premises of our republic, is fundamentally unamerican; it is to be a moral agnostic, a person who may have vague, inherited notions of right and wrong, but one who generally feels no more passion for such issues than might be felt for the next superhero movie or the upcoming football game on TV.

All of us, including myself, succumb to the pressure of abiding evil and even committing it from time to time, but when it happens, it should feel wrong, not like a shoulder-shrug moment. Ambivalence towards evil is a far greater problem than the existence of evil in this world, because societal ambivalence is what helps evil to fester. Personally, I think the existence and growth of a system to eliminate my God-given right to self-defense (and, eventually, destroy the greatest nation to ever exist) demands more attention than just about anything else in this world. You may not feel as passionately about that as I do, but you are sure as heck not going to convince me that I am being ridiculous or unreasonable in calling out evil, fighting against it, and encouraging other people to do the same.
Click to expand...

Sorry. Im a somewhat amoral realist. You feel differently and thats great but your'e going to be frustrated while I sail on through all legal legal like and with the goods at the end of the day.

They want the Form 1 to be fully home made. I can do that because I have spent the better part of a lifetime watching how the ATF works as a regular citizen and as an 02/07 SOT . Ive bought machine tools and equipment and I know how to use them. It takes a blind man no to see the direction theyve been going for the last two years. It was no surprise. What they have done is gone back to the standard that existed before 90% of form 1 silencer builders even knew what a silencer was . The scam got too big and caught a lot of attention.
 
Fred said:
Let's hypothetically say that someone Form 1'd a suppressor last year, before all this nonsense, with solvent trap parts never ruled illegal. Even though you did it with things never known to be illegal, you're still a felon. They can arrest you at any time. You owned suppressor parts before you Form 1ed them. The existence of the serial numbered Form 1 suppressor made with solvent trap parts(or any parts) IS the proof of the crime, not the exculpatory evidence, and they can prosecute you under this interpretation of the law at any time.

If you were going to Form 1 a can last year, you might as well have not registered it. You would still be subject to prosecution if they want to prosecute you, you just wouldn't be on the ATF's list of known felons that they have a slam dunk case to prosecute at any time.

Fear of being on these lists is why I've never gotten NFA items, and it looks like I was right. I was tempted to get a kit and a Form 1, and I'm glad I didn't.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. If you filed a form 1, paid the tax, and were approved I don’t think they’d have much of a case. You followed the law as you understood it and the expert agency essentially confirmed that you were following the law at that time. They have some wiggle room because they can say that they didn’t know that you were building from a kit, but they can’t hide the fact that they knew that these had become extremely common. Maybe they could do something, but I think they want the guys sellling kits to stop, they don’t want to chase down a bunch of cans that they previously approved. It feels like they want every excuse to mle you a felon, but they really don’t.

If they get a list of customers from the kit guys they may well try to match them up to existing form 1s, but I think they’ll be more interested in the kits sold to folks that haven’t filed a form 1 than the folks that have.
 
wired said:
They have been quite clear on this. The only way you get to build a silencer is if you are actually building the silencer and not just drilling holes in a prefabbed silencer baffle.
Click to expand...
Yes, they don’t like “assembly.”

Which leads us to form 1 SBRs and SBSs. Any shotgun is really a 110% SBS. You pay your tax and chop off the extra bit at the end and bob’s your uncle. It’s less work than building a suppressor kit. With AR pistols it’s even easier, you take off the brace and add a stock and viola it’s an SBR. These have been this way for all NFA time, think they’ll take a shot at making us build recievers and barrels from bar stock?
 
JimB said:
Yes, they don’t like “assembly.”

Which leads us to form 1 SBRs and SBSs. Any shotgun is really a 110% SBS. You pay your tax and chop off the extra bit at the end and bob’s your uncle. It’s less work than building a suppressor kit. With AR pistols it’s even easier, you take off the brace and add a stock and viola it’s an SBR. These have been this way for all NFA time, think they’ll take a shot at making us build recievers and barrels from bar stock?
Click to expand...
I have a hard time seeing the continued legality of 80% receiver guns and yeah, braces are about 5 months away from being extinct. .That brace thing was a massive initial FUBAR ruling at the ATF. Never would have happened under Ed Owens. As theyve shown again and again though. Just because they
allow something that shouldnt be allowed under the letter of the law there is nothing to stop them from going back to the old interpretation.
 
Last edited:
wired said:
I have a hard time seeing the continued legality of 80% receiver guns and yeah, braces are about 5 months away from being extinct. .That brace thing was a massive initial FUBAR ruling at the ATF. Never would have happened under Ed Owens. As theyve shown again and again though. Just because they
allow something that shouldnt be allowed under the letter of the law there is nothing to stop them from going back to the old interpretation.
Click to expand...
I don’t love it, but I think you’re right. Questions are all about how they get implemented. At one time there was hope for free sbr registrations when braces go out, but I think that’s unlikely. For folks that bought them as pistols, think the Sig or CMMG products, will they now be considered illegally transferred SBRs and if so then what? Will removing the brace “cure” the problem in their eyes even though it doesn’t unwind the transfer. 80% receivers are even trickier.

In the end, technology is making it really hard to keep the genie in the bottle.

With suppressors, I wonder if the demand for commercial cans is going to go up as DIY returns to being unattainable for most.
 
JimB said:
I don’t love it, but I think you’re right. Questions are all about how they get implemented. At one time there was hope for free sbr registrations when braces go out, but I think that’s unlikely. For folks that bought them as pistols, think the Sig or CMMG products, will they now be considered illegally transferred SBRs and if so then what? Will removing the brace “cure” the problem in their eyes even though it doesn’t unwind the transfer. 80% receivers are even trickier.

In the end, technology is making it really hard to keep the genie in the bottle.

With suppressors, I wonder if the demand for commercial cans is going to go up as DIY returns to being unattainable for most.
Click to expand...
I think theyre going to ramp up the NFA examiners now with efile in place. Form 4 time will drop . You'll still be able to do a form 1 silencer but its going to be on the new/old guidelines. Braces you can just take the brace off or SBR ( free stamp? Hahahhaha ). SBR's are only SBR's when configured as such. They arent like a MG where once a MG always an MG.

80% they already have rules out for marking starting in July I believe.
 
Last edited:
JimB said:
I don’t think so. If you filed a form 1, paid the tax, and were approved I don’t think they’d have much of a case.
Click to expand...
The crime was possessing the illegal silencer/silencer parts. It had already been committed before the owner filed a form 1. I don't see how it would matter if, after committing the crime, the owner then filed a Form 1, made an illegal suppressor, or destroyed the parts. The crime was already committed before registration. If they want to prosecute it, they will. And if the suppressor was made from illegal parts(per current ATF letters, all suppressor parts are illegal except bar stock, and always have been), then it proves their case all by itself.
JimB said:
You followed the law as you understood it and the expert agency essentially confirmed that you were following the law at that time.
Click to expand...
The ATF, as far as I know, has never ruled any undrilled baffles, suppressor kits, solvent traps, etc to be legal. Nor would it be a defense if they had. Approving a silencer is not proof that the parts were legal to own before they were assembled or drilled, when the crime had already occurred.
JimB said:
IMaybe they could do something, but I think they want the guys sellling kits to stop, they don’t want to chase down a bunch of cans that they previously approved. It feels like they want every excuse to mle you a felon, but they really don’t.
Click to expand...
Every Form 1 suppressor that wasn't machined from bar stock after the Form 1 was filed is an instant win felony case, if they can locate the suppressor and show that it is made of parts that were already a suppressor. So is every solvent trap and undrilled baffle purchase online, but the ATF doesn't have a self-identified felon list of those. The ATF may or may not prosecute these. Gambling on the good will of the ATF and those who give them orders seems lie a losing strategy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom