[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ATF releases multiple Notices of Proposed Rulemaking and Final Rules (Page 5 of 9)
|
Quoted: I'm not reading it as no more engraving. I'm reading it as no more redundant engraving. Meaning if the model and serial are already on the receiver you don't need to engrave it again, just your name and city, state. My guess That was never a requirement so why would you read that into it? |
|
Quoted: Keep in mind the precedent has already been set with the brace ban and free stamps, no engraving was required. The original mfg's info was enough. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm not reading it as no more engraving. I'm reading it as no more redundant engraving. Meaning if the model and serial are already on the receiver you don't need to engrave it again, just your name and city, state. My guess Why would it change something that was never the case? You never needed to do that. ETA: So long as you weren’t manufacturing a gun/suppressor from scratch. I think the "no more engraving" position is overly optimistic. A strict reading of the Federal code says that manufacturers may adopt previously engraved required markings, but it doesn't mention makers. There is a difference. It could just mean that it'll be revised so that both manufacturers and makers can adopt previously engraved markings. Keep in mind the precedent has already been set with the brace ban and free stamps, no engraving was required. The original mfg's info was enough. That's because, in the ATF's opinion, they left the factory as SBRs and already have the manufacturer's required markings. |
|
Quoted: That's because, in the ATF's opinion, they left the factory as SBRs and already have the manufacturer's required markings. Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I'm not reading it as no more engraving. I'm reading it as no more redundant engraving. Meaning if the model and serial are already on the receiver you don't need to engrave it again, just your name and city, state. My guess Why would it change something that was never the case? You never needed to do that. ETA: So long as you weren’t manufacturing a gun/suppressor from scratch. I think the "no more engraving" position is overly optimistic. A strict reading of the Federal code says that manufacturers may adopt previously engraved required markings, but it doesn't mention makers. There is a difference. It could just mean that it'll be revised so that both manufacturers and makers can adopt previously engraved markings. Keep in mind the precedent has already been set with the brace ban and free stamps, no engraving was required. The original mfg's info was enough. That's because, in the ATF's opinion, they left the factory as SBRs and already have the manufacturer's required markings. That's not true, it applied the same to all braced guns no matter how they originated. |
|
"Remove the list of former Soviet countries from which ATF currently denies applications to permanently import most firearms and ammunition, retaining only the Russian Federation" And if this applies to Norinco (and resurrects Polytech) I need to put some safe queens on Gunbroker fast. |
|
Quoted: You've never been required to engrave a second serial number. I read it as "If you're making a non-NFA receiver into NFA, then you don't have to engrave your maker's info, but if you're making an NFA firearm from scratch (e.g. from an 80% receiver), then you have to engrave your makers info, you can't just not put any info on the gun." This is how I'm reading it as well; but that may be wishfully as I want to Form 1 a t00b. |
|
Quoted: Wow. Orange Man Bad ordered BATFE to take a look at its regulations from a pro-2A perspective instead of a power hungry perspective, and it sounds like all the proposed changes are steps in the direction we would want them to go? "Drumpf is anti-2A. You can't trust him. He wants to 'take the guns early.' He's no friend to gun owners. These proposals are just crumbs." |
|
Quoted: I too want 5.45 spam cans at 6 cpr again. But realistically what country can make and export 5.45 that wasn’t already able to do so? Before or after ATF decided 7n6 was armor piercing pistol ammo? Speaking of which, I'd like to see them address that bullshit. 5.45 used to be cheaper to shoot than .22LR. |
 BREAKING HUGE ATF UPDATE!!!! |
|
Quoted: A moment of quiet reflection for Tarheel State Firearms NFA engraving, please.  Quoted: Eliminate engraving requirement for people making NFA firearms out of existing serialized guns Maybe THSF will offer an un-engraving service now 
|
|
Quoted: This "rule making" has been found to be the responsibility of Congress, not some bureaucracy. Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council has set the precedent that this "rule making" is unconstitutional. So none of these "rules" mean a thing. Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) ended automatic judicial deference (Chevron deference) to agencies on statutory meaning but preserved the administrative state's ability to function within clearer statutory limits. It allowed judicial oversight rather than eliminating rulemaking. |
|
Quoted: I'll await full language on that one, as it's worded there it's kind of vague. Most people already reused existing markings like the serial number and caliber. and it says "certain markings" here, not "all markings". Since it's in the clarify group, it might just be codifying a practice that was already being done by most with those redundant markings, but the need to add you name/city/state markings might remain, especially since those marking requirements are actually written into a law passed by Congress. Quoted: Quoted: 17P: Allowing Makers to Adopt Certain Markings for National Firearms Act - NPRM ATF is proposing to allow individuals who make National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms by altering existing firearms to adopt markings already applied by the original manufacturer rather than applying additional, redundant markings. Because the original importer and manufacturer's serial number and markings are already required by statute and regulation, this proposal eliminates a duplicative regulatory requirement while ensuring NFA marking requirements are satisfied. ATF has previously accommodated this practice through individual variances; this proposed rule codifies that accommodation into regulation to provide consistent, clear guidance across the industry. No more engraving! Let me guess, you are going to write a letter. Why can’t people shut up and take the win? |
|
The joint filing spousal thing is a good update. I wonder what the process will be and also for for updating already approved items. The engraving thing is good too. I read it as getting rid of the required additional engraving on commercial lowers. I know there is a possible legal snag but at least this time it goes in our favor. |
|
Quoted: Do they not have lakes and boating accidents in Canada? Quoted: Quoted: I am aware......also aware that my friend would probably get the royal reaming from the RCMP if he can't produce it The idea has crossed my mind Do they not have lakes and boating accidents in Canada? They probably do......but Castreaux and Carney have screwed that place up so bad you'd probably do life and have to forfeit your house and land to one of those first nations groups they kiss ass or the Muslims |
|
I attended the signing today and had several conversations with ATF officials about the things they were working on (very general conversations). The biggest complaint will be "it doesn't go far enough" from the pro-gun crowd. Until the proposed rules are released to see what they actually say, it seems like a step in the right direction. Some of the things like "willful violation" are long overdue from the industry side of things. The unfortunate thing is that another admin can just "undo" everything being done here. But that is exactly what this administration is doing with the Biden era rules. For lasting change, there needs to be a a court order or Congress needs to actually amend the laws. But Congress doesn't want to do its job. Quoted: Need answer . . . Hopefully declaring FRTs not machine guns in the official, published rules. Quoted: Quoted: Soooo what is the machine gun Cargill thing about…? Need answer . . . Hopefully declaring FRTs not machine guns in the official, published rules. Prior to the bumpstock rule, the regulatory definition (found in 27 C.F.R. 478.11) of machinegun matched the statutory language which read: The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. After the bumpstock rule, the regulation changed its language to read: Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any combination of parts from which a machine gun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. For purposes of this definition, the term “automatically” as it modifies “shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,” means functioning as the result of a self-acting or self-regulating mechanism that allows the firing of multiple rounds through a single function of the trigger; and “single function of the trigger” means a single pull of the trigger and analogous motions. The term “machine gun” includes a bump-stock-type device, i.e., a device that allows a semi-automatic firearm to shoot more than one shot with a single pull of the trigger by harnessing the recoil energy of the semi-automatic firearm to which it is affixed so that the trigger resets and continues firing without additional physical manipulation of the trigger by the shooter. In Cargill the Supreme Court affirmed the 5th Circuit's ruling which held that "The Final Rule promulgated by the ATF violates the [Administrative Procedures Act]." In other words, the bumpstock rule was invalid and that definition was no good. Based on my conversations with Rob and what he stated during the signing, this would just be cleaning up the regulation and returning the language to its prior state. But I may be wrong on that. |
|
Quoted: I have more than a few on my ignore list. I haven't seen a single greybar yet. Quoted: Quoted: Where are all the greybars? I have more than a few on my ignore list. I haven't seen a single greybar yet. The problem with N_Ts is, as five get permabanned, ten show up to replace them. |
|
Quoted: @SuperMoose Do you have any details on the engraving changes? No. I don't have any more information than you do. They were tight lipped about today other than it was a ceremony for signing of new proposed and final rules. I got the invitation late morning yesterday which was fun rearranging my schedule to get down there. Prior conversations were again, very general. |
|
Quoted: I'd guess you'd have to do a form 4 from yourself as an individual to yourself and your wife as a couple. I bet/ hope there will be an easier way. Maybe just a way to amend the form 1 or 4 by adding spousal info to the original application/ stamp since you cant register the same gun twice. Maybe the same forms as adding someone to a trust? (I have not done a trust so IDK exactly what is done there) |
|
Mg amnesty Bump stocks, frts, achitseb devices all ok. Braces are braces as long as the manufacturer says it’s a brace. Repeal “once an MG always an MG” rule Repeal open bolt semi ban No more constructive possession End of pistol import points system All non full auto rifles are “suitable for sporting purposes” (no more 922) No more finger prints, photos, Cleo notifications, or “responsible persons” for title 2 items. Just a nics check and you are done. A repeal of considering mild steel core armor piercing No import bans of Chinese or Russian ammo |
|
Quoted: I wonder if this means 7N6 and 7.62x25mm Tokarev is coming back. And if this applies to Norinco (and resurrects Polytech) I need to put some safe queens on Gunbroker fast. It likely means these are coming back:  Plus: - know what military rifle was NOT on the 1989 ban list? This:  No- that is NOT an AK variant. More of a DMR. With the correct silver-tip match load, it is a very capable DMR. These were made in a number of former USSR states. |
|
Quoted: The joint filing spousal thing is a good update. I wonder what the process will be and also for for updating already approved items. The engraving thing is good too. I read it as getting rid of the required additional engraving on commercial lowers. I know there is a possible legal snag but at least this time it goes in our favor. Trusts have more flexibility & privacy. If for example your state bans an item, add a trustee who resides in a legal state and your items have a legal safe harbor. But chances are your spouse alone is a resident of your same state. So offering couples registration is useful, but also might just be the devil’s chips & candy on the end cap that potentially keeps you from shopping for the meat. |
|
Quoted: I wonder if this means 7N6 and 7.62x25mm Tokarev is coming back. And if this applies to Norinco (and resurrects Polytech) I need to put some safe queens on Gunbroker fast. If I had to guess the vast majority of that 5.45 got swallowed up in Ukraine. We shall see |
|
Quoted: I wonder if this means 7N6 and 7.62x25mm Tokarev is coming back. And if this applies to Norinco (and resurrects Polytech) I need to put some safe queens on Gunbroker fast. Quoted: "Remove the list of former Soviet countries from which ATF currently denies applications to permanently import most firearms and ammunition, retaining only the Russian Federation" And if this applies to Norinco (and resurrects Polytech) I need to put some safe queens on Gunbroker fast. This is one I'll need spelled out for me. We were already getting firearms and ammo from most former Soviet nations. I think specific loads like 7N6 were blocked under the "armor piercing pistol ammunition" nonsense which apparently isn't getting cleaned up here. I think the Chinese stuff is blocked under a separate action, and that's also not mentioned here. |
|
Quoted: Mg amnesty Bump stocks, frts, achitseb devices all ok. Braces are braces as long as the manufacturer says it’s a brace. Repeal “once an MG always an MG” rule Repeal open bolt semi ban No more constructive possession End of pistol import points system All non full auto rifles are “suitable for sporting purposes” (no more 922) No more finger prints, photos, Cleo notifications, or “responsible persons” for title 2 items. Just a nics check and you are done. A repeal of considering mild steel core armor piercing No import bans of Chinese or Russian ammo 1. A machinegun amnesty would've been possible prior to 922(o), but I think the existence of 922(o) prevents it. 2. "achitseb"? 3. All rifles are by definition "non full auto", otherwise they're machineguns. IIRC current precedent is that you have to assume that when Congress wrote a law, Congress intended for something to change from before they wrote the law, so you can't redefine what the law does through regulation to where the law does nothing. So you'd still have to have some sort of "non-sporting" definition which would meet at least some rifles and shotguns. Maybe write the definition so it's something that's so narrow that it technically bans something as non-sporting, but that non-sporting definition isn't actually something anyone would want. .22 caliber rifles with barrels over 40" long that weigh over 100 pounds or something, I dunno. 4. The law requires fingerprints and photos be collected. They're getting rid of the CLEO notification, that was one of the new regulations they announced. 5. Do you really want China, our #1 competitor in the world, to gut the US ammo manufacturing business? |
|
Quoted: 09P: Importing Dual-Use Frames, Receivers, or Barrels - NPRM ATF is proposing to clarify that Federal Firearms Licensees may lawfully import firearm barrels and frames/receivers capable of being used on both sporting and non-sporting firearms provided that an identified sporting configuration for the barrel or frame/receiver exists at the time of importation. The proposed rule also clarifies that once lawfully imported, a dual-use barrel or frame/receiver may be incorporated into the assembly of a sporting, non-sporting, or NFA-regulated firearm, subject to compliance with all other applicable federal firearms laws. 10P: Importing Training Rounds - NPRM ATF is proposing to formally clarify in regulation that "training rounds" including inert, marking, or simulated-projectile products used for training purposes do not meet the statutory definition of "ammunition" under the Gun Control Act (GCA) and are therefore not regulated under the GCA or the Arms Export Control Act provided the round is not for a firearm. This codification provides regulatory certainty for importers, manufacturers, and law enforcement suppliers who produce, acquire, or distribute these products. 17P: Allowing Makers to Adopt Certain Markings for National Firearms Act - NPRM ATF is proposing to allow individuals who make National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms by altering existing firearms to adopt markings already applied by the original manufacturer rather than applying additional, redundant markings. Because the original importer and manufacturer's serial number and markings are already required by statute and regulation, this proposal eliminates a duplicative regulatory requirement while ensuring NFA marking requirements are satisfied. ATF has previously accommodated this practice through individual variances; this proposed rule codifies that accommodation into regulation to provide consistent, clear guidance across the industry. No more engraving! |