Federal Court Strikes Down NFA Registration on "untaxed" firearms (Page 113 of 195)
|
Posting again for visibility. In Silencer Shop Foundation vs. ATF, the plaintiffs are: - Brady Wetz - Silencer Shop Foundation - B&T USA, LLC, - Palmetto State Armory, LLC - SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC - Gun Owners of America, Inc. - Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. - Gun Owners Foundation - States of Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming The challenged NFA provisions are: • 26 U.S.C. § 5812(a)–(b); https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5812 (a)Application A firearm shall not be transferred unless (1) the transferor of the firearm has filed with the Secretary a written application, in duplicate, for the transfer and registration of the firearm to the transferee on the application form prescribed by the Secretary; (2) any tax payable on the transfer is paid as evidenced by the proper stamp affixed to the original application form; (3) the transferee is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, except that, if such person is an individual, the identification must include his fingerprints and his photograph; (4) the transferor of the firearm is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe; (5) the firearm is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe; and (6) the application form shows that the Secretary has approved the transfer and the registration of the firearm to the transferee. Applications shall be denied if the transfer, receipt, or possession of the firearm would place the transferee in violation of law. (b)Transfer of possession The transferee of a firearm shall not take possession of the firearm unless the Secretary has approved the transfer and registration of the firearm to the transferee as required by subsection (a) of this section. =============== • 26 U.S.C. § 5822; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5822 No person shall make a firearm unless he has (a) filed with the Secretary a written application, in duplicate, to make and register the firearm on the form prescribed by the Secretary; (b) paid any tax payable on the making and such payment is evidenced by the proper stamp affixed to the original application form; (c) identified the firearm to be made in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe; (d) identified himself in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, except that, if such person is an individual, the identification must include his fingerprints and his photograph; and (e) obtained the approval of the Secretary to make and register the firearm and the application form shows such approval. Applications shall be denied if the making or possession of the firearm would place the person making the firearm in violation of law. =============== • 26 U.S.C. § 5841(a)–(c), (e); https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5841 (a)Central registry The Secretary shall maintain a central registry of all firearms in the United States which are not in the possession or under the control of the United States. This registry shall be known as the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. The registry shall include— (1)identification of the firearm; (2)date of registration; and (3)identification and address of person entitled to possession of the firearm. (b)By whom registered Each manufacturer, importer, and maker shall register each firearm he manufactures, imports, or makes. Each firearm transferred shall be registered to the transferee by the transferor. (c)How registered Each manufacturer shall notify the Secretary of the manufacture of a firearm in such manner as may by regulations be prescribed and such notification shall effect the registration of the firearm required by this section. Each importer, maker, and transferor of a firearm shall, prior to importing, making, or transferring a firearm, obtain authorization in such manner as required by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder to import, make, or transfer the firearm, and such authorization shall effect the registration of the firearm required by this section. (e)Proof of registration A person possessing a firearm registered as required by this section shall retain proof of registration which shall be made available to the Secretary upon request. =============== • 26 U.S.C. § 5861(b)–(f); https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5861 It shall be unlawful for any person— (b)to receive or possess a firearm transferred to him in violation of the provisions of this chapter; or (c)to receive or possess a firearm made in violation of the provisions of this chapter; or (d)to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; or (e)to transfer a firearm in violation of the provisions of this chapter; or (f)to make a firearm in violation of the provisions of this chapter; [s]or =============== • 27 C.F.R. § 479.62(a)–(d); https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-II/subchapter-B/part-479/subpart-E/subject-group-ECFR19dba6cc0eced3e/section-479.62 § 479.62 Applying to make. (a) General. No person shall make a firearm unless the person has filed with the Director a completed application on ATF Form 1 (5320.1), Application to Make and Register a Firearm, in duplicate, executed under the penalties of perjury, to make and register the firearm and has received the approval of the Director to make the firearm, which approval shall effectuate registration of the firearm to the applicant. If the applicant is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company (including a Limited Liability Company (LLC)), association, trust, or corporation, all information on the Form 1 application shall be furnished for each responsible person of the applicant (b) Preparation of ATF Form 1. All of the information called for on Form 1 shall be provided, including: (1) Type of application, i.e., tax-paid or tax-exempt. If making the firearm is taxable, the applicant must remit $200 with the application for a machine gun or destructive device, or $0 for all other firearms, in accordance with the instructions on the form; (2) The identity of the applicant. If an individual, the applicant shall provide the applicant's name, address, and date of birth, and also comply with the identification requirements prescribed in § 479.63(a). If other than an individual, the applicant shall provide its name, address, and employer identification number, if any, as well as the name and address of each responsible person. Each responsible person of the applicant also shall comply with the identification requirements prescribed in § 479.63(b); (3) A description of the firearm to be made by type; caliber, gauge, or size; model; length of barrel; serial number; other marks of identification; and the name and address of the original manufacturer (if the applicant is not the original manufacturer); (4) The applicant's Federal firearms license number (if any); (5) The applicant's special (occupational) tax stamp (if applicable); and (6) If the applicant (including, if other than an individual, any responsible person) is an alien admitted under a nonimmigrant visa, applicable documentation demonstrating that the nonimmigrant alien falls within an exception to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B) under 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), or has obtained a waiver of that provision under 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(3). (c) Notification of chief law enforcement officer. Prior to the submission of the application to the Director, all applicants and responsible persons shall forward a completed copy of Form 1 or a completed copy of Form 5320.23, respectively, to the chief law enforcement officer of the locality in which the applicant or responsible person is located. The chief law enforcement officer is the local chief of police, county sheriff, head of the State police, or State or local district attorney or prosecutor. If the applicant is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company, association, or corporation, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at its principal office or principal place of business; if a trust, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at the primary location at which the firearm will be maintained. (d) Approval of Form 1. If the application is approved, the Director will affix a National Firearms Act stamp to the original application in the space provided therefor and properly cancel the stamp (see § 479.67). The approved application will then be returned to the applicant. =============== • 27 C.F.R. § 479.84(a)–(d). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-II/subchapter-B/part-479/subpart-F/subject-group-ECFRb28151c5621805c/section-479.84 § 479.84 Applying to transfer. (a) General. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, no firearm may be transferred in the United States unless an application, Form 4 (5320.4), Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm, in duplicate, executed under the penalties of perjury, to transfer the firearm and register it to the transferee has been filed with and approved by the Director. The application shall be filed by the transferor. If the transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company (including a Limited Liability Company (LLC)), association, trust, or corporation, all information on the Form 4 application shall be furnished for each responsible person of the transferee. (b) Preparation of ATF Form 4. All of the information called for on Form 4 shall be provided, including: (1) Type of firearm being transferred. The applicant must remit $200 with the application for a machine gun or destructive device, or $0 for all other firearms, in accordance with the instructions on the form; (2) The identity of the transferor by name and address and, if the transferor is other than a natural person, the title or legal status of the person executing the application in relation to the transferor; (3) The transferor's Federal firearms license number (if any); (4) The transferor's special (occupational) tax stamp (if any); (5) The identity of the transferee by name and address and, if the transferee is a person not qualified as a manufacturer, importer, or dealer under this part, the transferee shall be further identified in the manner prescribed in § 479.85; (6) The transferee's Federal firearms license number (if any); (7) The transferee's special (occupational) tax stamp (if applicable); and (8) A description of the firearm to be transferred by name and address of the manufacturer or importer (if known); caliber, gauge, or size; model; serial number; in the case of a short-barreled shotgun or a short-barreled rifle, the length of the barrel; in the case of a weapon made from a rifle or shotgun, the overall length of the weapon and the length of the barrel; and any other identifying marks on the firearm. In the event the firearm does not bear a serial number, the applicant shall obtain a serial number from ATF and shall stamp (impress) or otherwise conspicuously place such serial number on the firearm in a manner not susceptible of being readily obliterated, altered, or removed. (9) If the transferee (including, if other than an individual, any responsible person) is an alien admitted under a nonimmigrant visa, applicable documentation demonstrating that the nonimmigrant alien falls within an exception to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B) under 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), or has obtained a waiver of that provision under 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(3). (c) Notification of chief law enforcement officer. Prior to the submission of the application to the Director, all transferees and responsible persons shall forward a completed copy of Form 4 or a completed copy of Form 5320.23, respectively, to the chief law enforcement officer of the locality in which the transferee or responsible person is located. The chief law enforcement officer is the local chief of police, county sheriff, head of the State police, State or local district attorney or prosecutor. If the transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company, association, or corporation, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at its principal office or principal place of business; if the transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a trust, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at the primary location at which the firearm will be maintained. (d) Approval of Form 4. If the application is approved, the Director will affix a National Firearms Act stamp to the original application in the space provided therefor and properly cancel the stamp (see § 479.87). The approved application will then be returned to the transferor. =/=/=/=/=/=/=/=/=/=/=/=/=/=/= In Jensen vs. ATF, the plaintiffs are: - John Jensen - Jeremy Neusch - David Lynn Smith - Hot Shots Custom, LLC - Texas State Rifle Association - FPC Action Foundation - Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms The challenged NFA provisions are: • 26 U.S.C. § 5842(b); https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5842 26 U.S. Code § 5842 - Identification of firearms (Including (a) here because (b) below refers to it) (a)Identification of firearms other than destructive devices Each manufacturer and importer and anyone making a firearm shall identify each firearm, other than a destructive device, manufactured, imported, or made by a serial number which may not be readily removed, obliterated, or altered, the name of the manufacturer, importer, or maker, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. (b)Firearms without serial number Any person who possesses a firearm, other than a destructive device, which does not bear the serial number and other information required by subsection (a) of this section shall identify the firearm with a serial number assigned by the Secretary and any other information the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. =============== • 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5861 26 U.S. Code § 5861 - Prohibited acts It shall be unlawful for any person— (i)to receive or possess a firearm which is not identified by a serial number as required by this chapter |
|
Originally Posted By Coati: MDF, do you have any comment on how legally "binding" the guidance would be anyway? Suppose the ATF came out and said "yes we give you (superfluous and redundant) permission to do the things the judge gave you permission to do." How is that any more binding than the beat cop promising the strung out meth-head that "the judge will take it easy on him" if he only shows him the hidden crack pipe and gives up his dealer? The ATF is allowed to lie, in order to actually capture what they say in a binding way IIRC they must publish it in the federal register, allow comments, and then implement it in accordance with regulatory procedures. It would seem getting "guidance" is essentially useless since it's only as good as the claims of sadistic, schitzophrenic opportunistic liars that aren't bound to anything but saying whatever is useful to get their next conviction. They can just as easily turn around and say "whoops, that was the erroneous opinion of a rogue employee and we now think you should all go to jail." Binding on whom is the question. As far as an individual, probably not much there. But for an FFL it could make all the difference. For example: No guidance: IOI: "Where are the dispositions for these 87 suppressors you received on form 3s?" FFL licensee: "we recorded the transfer of these suppressors on form 4473s in our bound book." IOI: "That is not in compliance with record keeping regulations. We're going to count these as violations at $1,000 a piece." After guidance: IOI: "Where are the dispositions for these 87 suppressors you received on form 3s?" FFL licensee: "We recorded the dispositions as directed by ATF Circular 8787.87" IOI: "OK" Big difference for them. |
Avatar stolen from Ranger Up.
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
1155
EE: 0% (0)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By ParityError: Binding on whom is the question. As far as an individual, probably not much there. But for an FFL it could make all the difference. For example: No guidance: IOI: "Where are the dispositions for these 87 suppressors you received on form 3s?" FFL licensee: "we recorded the transfer of these suppressors on form 4473s in our bound book." IOI: "That is not in compliance with record keeping regulations. We're going to count these as violations at $1,000 a piece." After guidance: IOI: "Where are the dispositions for these 87 suppressors you received on form 3s?" FFL licensee: "We recorded the dispositions as directed by ATF Circular 8787.87" IOI: "OK" Big difference for them. Originally Posted By ParityError: Originally Posted By Coati: MDF, do you have any comment on how legally "binding" the guidance would be anyway? Suppose the ATF came out and said "yes we give you (superfluous and redundant) permission to do the things the judge gave you permission to do." How is that any more binding than the beat cop promising the strung out meth-head that "the judge will take it easy on him" if he only shows him the hidden crack pipe and gives up his dealer? The ATF is allowed to lie, in order to actually capture what they say in a binding way IIRC they must publish it in the federal register, allow comments, and then implement it in accordance with regulatory procedures. It would seem getting "guidance" is essentially useless since it's only as good as the claims of sadistic, schitzophrenic opportunistic liars that aren't bound to anything but saying whatever is useful to get their next conviction. They can just as easily turn around and say "whoops, that was the erroneous opinion of a rogue employee and we now think you should all go to jail." Binding on whom is the question. As far as an individual, probably not much there. But for an FFL it could make all the difference. For example: No guidance: IOI: "Where are the dispositions for these 87 suppressors you received on form 3s?" FFL licensee: "we recorded the transfer of these suppressors on form 4473s in our bound book." IOI: "That is not in compliance with record keeping regulations. We're going to count these as violations at $1,000 a piece." After guidance: IOI: "Where are the dispositions for these 87 suppressors you received on form 3s?" FFL licensee: "We recorded the dispositions as directed by ATF Circular 8787.87" IOI: "OK" Big difference for them. My question is short of capture that in the federal register (a months long process from start to solidification), what is to stop the IOI from deciding tomorrow he changed his mind and the second case reverts to the first. I cannot account for that otherwise than referring to first principles of the injunction, that override the arbitrary and capricious opinion of an IOI. Something that can be declared one way without process, can be declared another way without process. Hence the gazillion police videos of police giving their unbinding opinion and then tomorrow they magically change their mind or completely forget about what they said to induce the victim to their desired goal, much to the chagrin of the mark. |
|
Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: What you are missing is that it already has been "straightened out." There is a very clear and well reasoned order from a federal judge. He is the authority here, not some simp on the ATF payroll. Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By carbineone1964: Just have to love all these internet warriors wanting a FFL to go pout on a limb for them on. Risking their business, Family, and want them to possibly be imprisoned for you. I know full well that all these so called warriors will fold at the of the ATF on their knees. If actually confronted with the threat of losing all in their lives as they know it. They would turn on other people even to regain their lives back from the ATF. Yes there may be a few that would actually fight back. Maybe ones with lives so pathetic that they are loners and have nothing to lose anyway. I assure you 99 .9 percent of the warriors are all BS talk and would do anything once confronted, except beg for forgiveness, and go back to their homes and Family's. Friend has a Gun Shop and no he would never risk his lively hood for your urge to get a Suppressor just for the simple fact of it has no paperwork, until this is all straightened out. . If you do not want paper work, then just roll your own. Great if this all works out for some. But I am afraid for most. The free stamps are going to remain the best option in the end. Until we actually get Legislative repeal of the NFA. Nothing is going to change at the ATF. What you are missing is that it already has been "straightened out." There is a very clear and well reasoned order from a federal judge. He is the authority here, not some simp on the ATF payroll. Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. |
"Sometimes, the grass is greener because it's on a septic system."
"Sporterizing: The art of spending $700 on a $300 gun to make it worth $200." -GTwannabe
"Sporterizing: The art of spending $700 on a $300 gun to make it worth $200." -GTwannabe
|
Originally Posted By KELBEAST: 3d printers are going brrrrrrrrr across the country. If there was a way to track downloads of the FTN file pack starting with the deadline, it might be a good indicator. I have a feeling that a ton of people already had the files and were being extra free people already  
|
"Fully-loaded, safety off. This here is a recipe for unpleasantness." - Malcom Reynolds
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
|
Originally Posted By VacaDuck: Originally Posted By KELBEAST: 3d printers are going brrrrrrrrr across the country. If there was a way to track downloads of the FTN file pack starting with the deadline, it might be a good indicator. I have a feeling that a ton of people already had the files and were being extra free people already https://www.ar15.com/media/mediaFiles/102931/3726-3812817.jpg Freedom go brrrrt |
Never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be. - Adm James Stockdale
Member
Joined:
Jun 2022
Posts:
14331
EE: 100% (31)
TX, USA
|
This thread really has me thinking about one of those! |
“That’s not how it works. You buy more tools and power than you need and as you fuck everything up you gain the knowledge to become a better carpenter.”
Tveddy
Tveddy
|
Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By carbineone1964: Just have to love all these internet warriors wanting a FFL to go pout on a limb for them on. Risking their business, Family, and want them to possibly be imprisoned for you. I know full well that all these so called warriors will fold at the of the ATF on their knees. If actually confronted with the threat of losing all in their lives as they know it. They would turn on other people even to regain their lives back from the ATF. Yes there may be a few that would actually fight back. Maybe ones with lives so pathetic that they are loners and have nothing to lose anyway. I assure you 99 .9 percent of the warriors are all BS talk and would do anything once confronted, except beg for forgiveness, and go back to their homes and Family's. Friend has a Gun Shop and no he would never risk his lively hood for your urge to get a Suppressor just for the simple fact of it has no paperwork, until this is all straightened out. . If you do not want paper work, then just roll your own. Great if this all works out for some. But I am afraid for most. The free stamps are going to remain the best option in the end. Until we actually get Legislative repeal of the NFA. Nothing is going to change at the ATF. What you are missing is that it already has been "straightened out." There is a very clear and well reasoned order from a federal judge. He is the authority here, not some simp on the ATF payroll. Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. I have to agree with this, even if the ATF does something wrong does the average FFL have the tens of thousands to defend itself in court and keep the doors open while they're possibly shut down? The gov't could drag something simple out for 6 months to a year quite easily. |
|
Originally Posted By Firestarter123: My last Form 4 transfer from individual to trust was just approved this morning so they're still processing forms. . Not sure why they wouldn’t keep processing forms. The law didn’t change. All that happened is that a subset of people got protection from violations of specific law being enforced against them. That’s it. Still many people who need to go through the process for various reasons. |
|
Originally Posted By 1Andy2: What if they passed a law forbidding women from having more than 2 children? Would that be constitutional? Why or why not? Apparently congress has the power to levy a greater than $0 tax on anything they please, then assign huge fines and prison sentences to anyone who doesn't pay the tax. |
"I do believe that some gun laws are needed and yes, I am a Republican" ~ tc556guy - NRA Member
|
Originally Posted By Coati: My question is short of capture that in the federal register, what is to stop the IOI from deciding tomorrow he changed his mind and the second case reverts to the first. I cannot account for that otherwise than referring to first principles of the injunction, that override the arbitrary and capricious opinion of an IOI. Something that can be declared one way without process, can be declared another way without process. Hence the gazillion police videos of police giving their unbinding opinion and then tomorrow they magically change their mind or completely forget about what they said to induce the victim to their desired goal, much to the chagrin of the mark. The ATF certainly could flip flop on this - they certainly gave in the past. In that case, I'd suggest that a defense of "we followed their written order, entered as Defendant's exhibit #1" is much better that "we created an ad hoc way to record these transactions." |
Avatar stolen from Ranger Up.
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
“ If you rat on the Parade of Hope, you'll be lucky to find your toenails. These guys are the roughest of all the charities.”
|
Originally Posted By Dangus: Posting again for visibility. The challenged NFA provisions are: • 26 U.S.C. § 5812(a)–(b); https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5812 (a)Application A firearm shall not be transferred unless (1) the transferor of the firearm has filed with the Secretary a written application, in duplicate, for the transfer and registration of the firearm to the transferee on the application form prescribed by the Secretary; (2) any tax payable on the transfer is paid as evidenced by the proper stamp affixed to the original application form; (3) the transferee is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, except that, if such person is an individual, the identification must include his fingerprints and his photograph; (4) the transferor of the firearm is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe; (5) the firearm is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe; and (6) the application form shows that the Secretary has approved the transfer and the registration of the firearm to the transferee. Applications shall be denied if the transfer, receipt, or possession of the firearm would place the transferee in violation of law. (b)Transfer of possession The transferee of a firearm shall not take possession of the firearm unless the Secretary has approved the transfer and registration of the firearm to the transferee as required by subsection (a) of this section. =============== • 26 U.S.C. § 5822; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5822 No person shall make a firearm unless he has (a) filed with the Secretary a written application, in duplicate, to make and register the firearm on the form prescribed by the Secretary; (b) paid any tax payable on the making and such payment is evidenced by the proper stamp affixed to the original application form; (c) identified the firearm to be made in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe; (d) identified himself in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, except that, if such person is an individual, the identification must include his fingerprints and his photograph; and (e) obtained the approval of the Secretary to make and register the firearm and the application form shows such approval. Applications shall be denied if the making or possession of the firearm would place the person making the firearm in violation of law. =============== • 26 U.S.C. § 5841(a)–(c), (e); https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5841 (a)Central registry The Secretary shall maintain a central registry of all firearms in the United States which are not in the possession or under the control of the United States. This registry shall be known as the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. The registry shall include— (1)identification of the firearm; (2)date of registration; and (3)identification and address of person entitled to possession of the firearm. (b)By whom registered Each manufacturer, importer, and maker shall register each firearm he manufactures, imports, or makes. Each firearm transferred shall be registered to the transferee by the transferor. (c)How registered Each manufacturer shall notify the Secretary of the manufacture of a firearm in such manner as may by regulations be prescribed and such notification shall effect the registration of the firearm required by this section. Each importer, maker, and transferor of a firearm shall, prior to importing, making, or transferring a firearm, obtain authorization in such manner as required by this chapter or regulations issued thereunder to import, make, or transfer the firearm, and such authorization shall effect the registration of the firearm required by this section. A person shown as possessing a firearm by the records maintained by the Secretary pursuant to the National Firearms Act in force on the day immediately prior to the effective date of the National Firearms Act of 1968 [1] shall be considered to have registered under this section the firearms in his possession which are disclosed by that record as being in his possession. (e)Proof of registration A person possessing a firearm registered as required by this section shall retain proof of registration which shall be made available to the Secretary upon request. =============== • 26 U.S.C. § 5861(b)–(f); https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5861 It shall be unlawful for any person— (b)to receive or possess a firearm transferred to him in violation of the provisions of this chapter; or (c)to receive or possess a firearm made in violation of the provisions of this chapter; or (d)to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record; or (e)to transfer a firearm in violation of the provisions of this chapter; or (f)to make a firearm in violation of the provisions of this chapter; (g)to obliterate, remove, change, or alter the serial number or other identification of a firearm required by this chapter; or (h)to receive or possess a firearm having the serial number or other identification required by this chapter obliterated, removed, changed, or altered; or (i)to receive or possess a firearm which is not identified by a serial number as required by this chapter; or (j)to transport, deliver, or receive any firearm in interstate commerce which has not been registered as required by this chapter; or (k)to receive or possess a firearm which has been imported or brought into the United States in violation of section 5844; or (l)to make, or cause the making of, a false entry on any application, return, or record required by this chapter, knowing such entry to be false. =============== • 27 C.F.R. § 479.62(a)–(d); https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-II/subchapter-B/part-479/subpart-E/subject-group-ECFR19dba6cc0eced3e/section-479.62 § 479.62 Applying to make. (a) General. No person shall make a firearm unless the person has filed with the Director a completed application on ATF Form 1 (5320.1), Application to Make and Register a Firearm, in duplicate, executed under the penalties of perjury, to make and register the firearm and has received the approval of the Director to make the firearm, which approval shall effectuate registration of the firearm to the applicant. If the applicant is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company (including a Limited Liability Company (LLC)), association, trust, or corporation, all information on the Form 1 application shall be furnished for each responsible person of the applicant (b) Preparation of ATF Form 1. All of the information called for on Form 1 shall be provided, including: (1) Type of application, i.e., tax-paid or tax-exempt. If making the firearm is taxable, the applicant must remit $200 with the application for a machine gun or destructive device, or $0 for all other firearms, in accordance with the instructions on the form; (2) The identity of the applicant. If an individual, the applicant shall provide the applicant's name, address, and date of birth, and also comply with the identification requirements prescribed in § 479.63(a). If other than an individual, the applicant shall provide its name, address, and employer identification number, if any, as well as the name and address of each responsible person. Each responsible person of the applicant also shall comply with the identification requirements prescribed in § 479.63(b); (3) A description of the firearm to be made by type; caliber, gauge, or size; model; length of barrel; serial number; other marks of identification; and the name and address of the original manufacturer (if the applicant is not the original manufacturer); (4) The applicant's Federal firearms license number (if any); (5) The applicant's special (occupational) tax stamp (if applicable); and (6) If the applicant (including, if other than an individual, any responsible person) is an alien admitted under a nonimmigrant visa, applicable documentation demonstrating that the nonimmigrant alien falls within an exception to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B) under 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), or has obtained a waiver of that provision under 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(3). (c) Notification of chief law enforcement officer. Prior to the submission of the application to the Director, all applicants and responsible persons shall forward a completed copy of Form 1 or a completed copy of Form 5320.23, respectively, to the chief law enforcement officer of the locality in which the applicant or responsible person is located. The chief law enforcement officer is the local chief of police, county sheriff, head of the State police, or State or local district attorney or prosecutor. If the applicant is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company, association, or corporation, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at its principal office or principal place of business; if a trust, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at the primary location at which the firearm will be maintained. (d) Approval of Form 1. If the application is approved, the Director will affix a National Firearms Act stamp to the original application in the space provided therefor and properly cancel the stamp (see § 479.67). The approved application will then be returned to the applicant. =============== • 27 C.F.R. § 479.84(a)–(d). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-27/chapter-II/subchapter-B/part-479/subpart-F/subject-group-ECFRb28151c5621805c/section-479.84 § 479.84 Applying to transfer. (a) General. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, no firearm may be transferred in the United States unless an application, Form 4 (5320.4), Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm, in duplicate, executed under the penalties of perjury, to transfer the firearm and register it to the transferee has been filed with and approved by the Director. The application shall be filed by the transferor. If the transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company (including a Limited Liability Company (LLC)), association, trust, or corporation, all information on the Form 4 application shall be furnished for each responsible person of the transferee. (b) Preparation of ATF Form 4. All of the information called for on Form 4 shall be provided, including: (1) Type of firearm being transferred. The applicant must remit $200 with the application for a machine gun or destructive device, or $0 for all other firearms, in accordance with the instructions on the form; (2) The identity of the transferor by name and address and, if the transferor is other than a natural person, the title or legal status of the person executing the application in relation to the transferor; (3) The transferor's Federal firearms license number (if any); (4) The transferor's special (occupational) tax stamp (if any); (5) The identity of the transferee by name and address and, if the transferee is a person not qualified as a manufacturer, importer, or dealer under this part, the transferee shall be further identified in the manner prescribed in § 479.85; (6) The transferee's Federal firearms license number (if any); (7) The transferee's special (occupational) tax stamp (if applicable); and (8) A description of the firearm to be transferred by name and address of the manufacturer or importer (if known); caliber, gauge, or size; model; serial number; in the case of a short-barreled shotgun or a short-barreled rifle, the length of the barrel; in the case of a weapon made from a rifle or shotgun, the overall length of the weapon and the length of the barrel; and any other identifying marks on the firearm. In the event the firearm does not bear a serial number, the applicant shall obtain a serial number from ATF and shall stamp (impress) or otherwise conspicuously place such serial number on the firearm in a manner not susceptible of being readily obliterated, altered, or removed. (9) If the transferee (including, if other than an individual, any responsible person) is an alien admitted under a nonimmigrant visa, applicable documentation demonstrating that the nonimmigrant alien falls within an exception to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B) under 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(2), or has obtained a waiver of that provision under 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(3). (c) Notification of chief law enforcement officer. Prior to the submission of the application to the Director, all transferees and responsible persons shall forward a completed copy of Form 4 or a completed copy of Form 5320.23, respectively, to the chief law enforcement officer of the locality in which the transferee or responsible person is located. The chief law enforcement officer is the local chief of police, county sheriff, head of the State police, State or local district attorney or prosecutor. If the transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company, association, or corporation, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at its principal office or principal place of business; if the transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a trust, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at the primary location at which the firearm will be maintained. (d) Approval of Form 4. If the application is approved, the Director will affix a National Firearms Act stamp to the original application in the space provided therefor and properly cancel the stamp (see § 479.87). The approved application will then be returned to the transferor. =============== • 26 U.S.C. § 5842(b); https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5842 26 U.S. Code § 5842 - Identification of firearms (Including (a) here because (b) below refers to it) (a)Identification of firearms other than destructive devices Each manufacturer and importer and anyone making a firearm shall identify each firearm, other than a destructive device, manufactured, imported, or made by a serial number which may not be readily removed, obliterated, or altered, the name of the manufacturer, importer, or maker, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. (b)Firearms without serial number Any person who possesses a firearm, other than a destructive device, which does not bear the serial number and other information required by subsection (a) of this section shall identify the firearm with a serial number assigned by the Secretary and any other information the Secretary may by regulations prescribe. =============== • 26 U.S.C. § 5861(i). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5861 26 U.S. Code § 5861 - Prohibited acts It shall be unlawful for any person— (i)to receive or possess a firearm which is not identified by a serial number as required by this chapter ===================================== And the plaintiffs are... In Silencer Shop Foundation vs. ATF: - Brady Wetz - Silencer Shop Foundation - B&T USA, LLC, - Palmetto State Armory, LLC - SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC - Gun Owners of America, Inc. - Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc. - Gun Owners Foundation - States of Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming In Jensen vs. ATF: - John Jensen - Jeremy Neusch - David Lynn Smith - Hot Shots Custom, LLC - Texas State Rifle Association - FPC Action Foundation - Citizens Committee For The Right To Keep And Bear Arms I'm just a simple Texan, but as far as transfer between two private parties, that's free game now? I can sell a sbr I form 1'd without doing a form 4? Do I need to have it removed from the nfa registry? 
|
|
Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By carbineone1964: Just have to love all these internet warriors wanting a FFL to go pout on a limb for them on. Risking their business, Family, and want them to possibly be imprisoned for you. I know full well that all these so called warriors will fold at the of the ATF on their knees. If actually confronted with the threat of losing all in their lives as they know it. They would turn on other people even to regain their lives back from the ATF. Yes there may be a few that would actually fight back. Maybe ones with lives so pathetic that they are loners and have nothing to lose anyway. I assure you 99 .9 percent of the warriors are all BS talk and would do anything once confronted, except beg for forgiveness, and go back to their homes and Family's. Friend has a Gun Shop and no he would never risk his lively hood for your urge to get a Suppressor just for the simple fact of it has no paperwork, until this is all straightened out. . If you do not want paper work, then just roll your own. Great if this all works out for some. But I am afraid for most. The free stamps are going to remain the best option in the end. Until we actually get Legislative repeal of the NFA. Nothing is going to change at the ATF. What you are missing is that it already has been "straightened out." There is a very clear and well reasoned order from a federal judge. He is the authority here, not some simp on the ATF payroll. Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. What you fail to grasp is that administrative guidelines from ATF are meaningless in the face of a court order. If they attempt to enforce the challenged provisions, they are in contempt of court and can go to jail. It does not matter what "DOJs interpretation of the ruling" is. It is not difficult to know how to proceed here. I have posted it repeatedly in this thread. The NFA requirements are enjoined. The FFL needs to treat the suppressor like any other GCA firearm: 4473, bound book, etc. |
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9 (ESV)
|
Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: What you fail to grasp is that administrative guidelines from ATF are meaningless in the face of a court order. If they attempt to enforce the challenged provisions, they are in contempt of court and can go to jail. It does not matter what "DOJs interpretation of the ruling" is. It is not difficult to know how to proceed here. I have posted it repeatedly in this thread. The NFA requirements are enjoined. The FFL needs to treat the suppressor like any other GCA firearm: 4473, bound book, etc. Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By carbineone1964: Just have to love all these internet warriors wanting a FFL to go pout on a limb for them on. Risking their business, Family, and want them to possibly be imprisoned for you. I know full well that all these so called warriors will fold at the of the ATF on their knees. If actually confronted with the threat of losing all in their lives as they know it. They would turn on other people even to regain their lives back from the ATF. Yes there may be a few that would actually fight back. Maybe ones with lives so pathetic that they are loners and have nothing to lose anyway. I assure you 99 .9 percent of the warriors are all BS talk and would do anything once confronted, except beg for forgiveness, and go back to their homes and Family's. Friend has a Gun Shop and no he would never risk his lively hood for your urge to get a Suppressor just for the simple fact of it has no paperwork, until this is all straightened out. . If you do not want paper work, then just roll your own. Great if this all works out for some. But I am afraid for most. The free stamps are going to remain the best option in the end. Until we actually get Legislative repeal of the NFA. Nothing is going to change at the ATF. What you are missing is that it already has been "straightened out." There is a very clear and well reasoned order from a federal judge. He is the authority here, not some simp on the ATF payroll. Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. What you fail to grasp is that administrative guidelines from ATF are meaningless in the face of a court order. If they attempt to enforce the challenged provisions, they are in contempt of court and can go to jail. It does not matter what "DOJs interpretation of the ruling" is. It is not difficult to know how to proceed here. I have posted it repeatedly in this thread. The NFA requirements are enjoined. The FFL needs to treat the suppressor like any other GCA firearm: 4473, bound book, etc. What if the FFL improperly released a suppressor to someone not properly covered by the injunction? It would be an easy mistake to make, or they sold a suppressor to someone with a fake membership number to one of the enjoined parties, who's liable for that mistake/deception? I see a lot of nuanced issues here where the ATF could jam someone up if they chose. The ATF is an organization that for decades has tried to break guns to make them function in a way they shouldn't so they could bring charges against individuals. Hell, look at the auto key card guy who laser engraved business cards to look like a DIAS, except it wasn't even dimensionally accurate. How many of those agents ever had to face consequences for things like that? |
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
1156
EE: 0% (0)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By ParityError: The ATF certainly could flip flop on this - they certainly gave in the past. In that case, I'd suggest that a defense of "we followed their written order, entered as Defendant's exhibit #1" is much better that "we created an ad hoc way to record these transactions." Originally Posted By ParityError: Originally Posted By Coati: My question is short of capture that in the federal register, what is to stop the IOI from deciding tomorrow he changed his mind and the second case reverts to the first. I cannot account for that otherwise than referring to first principles of the injunction, that override the arbitrary and capricious opinion of an IOI. Something that can be declared one way without process, can be declared another way without process. Hence the gazillion police videos of police giving their unbinding opinion and then tomorrow they magically change their mind or completely forget about what they said to induce the victim to their desired goal, much to the chagrin of the mark. The ATF certainly could flip flop on this - they certainly gave in the past. In that case, I'd suggest that a defense of "we followed their written order, entered as Defendant's exhibit #1" is much better that "we created an ad hoc way to record these transactions." But then you're back to depending on a legal defense to overcome it, which is what some FFLs (perhaps rationally) are claiming they don't want to deal with. So the "guidance" is just a rolling excuse, because it won't cure their underlying fear, only perhaps slightly mitigate it in the event the fear happens. They are still in the exact same situation that the injunction is the only solid principle on which their defense stands and the IOI can act arbitrarily and capriciously with non-binding opinions some of which are uttered as "guidance." I can't conjure up a situation short of an entry in the federal register where the guidance is anything but redundant. In short, FFL appear to be using them as a talisman or rolling excuse, and relying on superstition for what it means for them. |
|
Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By carbineone1964: Just have to love all these internet warriors wanting a FFL to go pout on a limb for them on. Risking their business, Family, and want them to possibly be imprisoned for you. I know full well that all these so called warriors will fold at the of the ATF on their knees. If actually confronted with the threat of losing all in their lives as they know it. They would turn on other people even to regain their lives back from the ATF. Yes there may be a few that would actually fight back. Maybe ones with lives so pathetic that they are loners and have nothing to lose anyway. I assure you 99 .9 percent of the warriors are all BS talk and would do anything once confronted, except beg for forgiveness, and go back to their homes and Family's. Friend has a Gun Shop and no he would never risk his lively hood for your urge to get a Suppressor just for the simple fact of it has no paperwork, until this is all straightened out. . If you do not want paper work, then just roll your own. Great if this all works out for some. But I am afraid for most. The free stamps are going to remain the best option in the end. Until we actually get Legislative repeal of the NFA. Nothing is going to change at the ATF. What you are missing is that it already has been "straightened out." There is a very clear and well reasoned order from a federal judge. He is the authority here, not some simp on the ATF payroll. Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. So what happens if the DOJ & ATF never release updated rules? The judge's order doesn't require them to do that. It only requires that they not enforce the enjoined laws. But if no FFL will do a 4473-only silencer transaction without ATF guidance, then the ATF wins by default, so why would the ATF ever write new rules? There need to be at least some FFLs who will do 4473-only transactions to force the ATF's hand. |
How do I get out of this chickenshit outfit?
Joined:
Feb 2011
Posts:
16466
EE: 100% (22)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: What you fail to grasp is that administrative guidelines from ATF are meaningless in the face of a court order. If they attempt to enforce the challenged provisions, they are in contempt of court and can go to jail. It does not matter what "DOJs interpretation of the ruling" is. It is not difficult to know how to proceed here. I have posted it repeatedly in this thread. The NFA requirements are enjoined. The FFL needs to treat the suppressor like any other GCA firearm: 4473, bound book, etc. Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By carbineone1964: Just have to love all these internet warriors wanting a FFL to go pout on a limb for them on. Risking their business, Family, and want them to possibly be imprisoned for you. I know full well that all these so called warriors will fold at the of the ATF on their knees. If actually confronted with the threat of losing all in their lives as they know it. They would turn on other people even to regain their lives back from the ATF. Yes there may be a few that would actually fight back. Maybe ones with lives so pathetic that they are loners and have nothing to lose anyway. I assure you 99 .9 percent of the warriors are all BS talk and would do anything once confronted, except beg for forgiveness, and go back to their homes and Family's. Friend has a Gun Shop and no he would never risk his lively hood for your urge to get a Suppressor just for the simple fact of it has no paperwork, until this is all straightened out. . If you do not want paper work, then just roll your own. Great if this all works out for some. But I am afraid for most. The free stamps are going to remain the best option in the end. Until we actually get Legislative repeal of the NFA. Nothing is going to change at the ATF. What you are missing is that it already has been "straightened out." There is a very clear and well reasoned order from a federal judge. He is the authority here, not some simp on the ATF payroll. Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. What you fail to grasp is that administrative guidelines from ATF are meaningless in the face of a court order. If they attempt to enforce the challenged provisions, they are in contempt of court and can go to jail. It does not matter what "DOJs interpretation of the ruling" is. It is not difficult to know how to proceed here. I have posted it repeatedly in this thread. The NFA requirements are enjoined. The FFL needs to treat the suppressor like any other GCA firearm: 4473, bound book, etc. This. The courts told ATF what they can’t do, not that they need to come up with what citizens are allowed to do. |
|
Originally Posted By Cypher214: These videos are absolute nonsense at the moment. YouTubers going for clicks aren't any more knowledgeable than the rest of us and I don't care what sort of "credentials" they have. True, but at least he’s admitting he doesn’t know, plus he’s an actual lawyer that can provide facts on the law and legal system works. That’s a lot more than internet commandos who pretend they know everything and who’s only courtroom experience is to contest a DUI charge. |
|
Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By carbineone1964: Just have to love all these internet warriors wanting a FFL to go pout on a limb for them on. Risking their business, Family, and want them to possibly be imprisoned for you. I know full well that all these so called warriors will fold at the of the ATF on their knees. If actually confronted with the threat of losing all in their lives as they know it. They would turn on other people even to regain their lives back from the ATF. Yes there may be a few that would actually fight back. Maybe ones with lives so pathetic that they are loners and have nothing to lose anyway. I assure you 99 .9 percent of the warriors are all BS talk and would do anything once confronted, except beg for forgiveness, and go back to their homes and Family's. Friend has a Gun Shop and no he would never risk his lively hood for your urge to get a Suppressor just for the simple fact of it has no paperwork, until this is all straightened out. . If you do not want paper work, then just roll your own. Great if this all works out for some. But I am afraid for most. The free stamps are going to remain the best option in the end. Until we actually get Legislative repeal of the NFA. Nothing is going to change at the ATF. What you are missing is that it already has been "straightened out." There is a very clear and well reasoned order from a federal judge. He is the authority here, not some simp on the ATF payroll. Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. Damn freedom, you scary |
Life member of CRPA. FPC contributor.
Joined:
Feb 2026
Posts:
43
EE: 0% (0)
PA, USA
|
Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. This. I know I wouldn't take that risk to "stick it to the man". I'm faced with various risks for my businesses daily that I opt one way or the other, almost always taking the safe bet. AND, I'm not an FFL which defines risk based business. I really wish they'd get on with it and provide clarity/guidance. The suspense is killing me. I check this thread more often than my watch. |
|
Originally Posted By StevenH: Damn freedom, you scary Originally Posted By StevenH: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By carbineone1964: Just have to love all these internet warriors wanting a FFL to go pout on a limb for them on. Risking their business, Family, and want them to possibly be imprisoned for you. I know full well that all these so called warriors will fold at the of the ATF on their knees. If actually confronted with the threat of losing all in their lives as they know it. They would turn on other people even to regain their lives back from the ATF. Yes there may be a few that would actually fight back. Maybe ones with lives so pathetic that they are loners and have nothing to lose anyway. I assure you 99 .9 percent of the warriors are all BS talk and would do anything once confronted, except beg for forgiveness, and go back to their homes and Family's. Friend has a Gun Shop and no he would never risk his lively hood for your urge to get a Suppressor just for the simple fact of it has no paperwork, until this is all straightened out. . If you do not want paper work, then just roll your own. Great if this all works out for some. But I am afraid for most. The free stamps are going to remain the best option in the end. Until we actually get Legislative repeal of the NFA. Nothing is going to change at the ATF. What you are missing is that it already has been "straightened out." There is a very clear and well reasoned order from a federal judge. He is the authority here, not some simp on the ATF payroll. Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. Damn freedom, you scary It is, there's a big difference in risk for someone buying vs someone selling when they have the FATF hovering over their heads like the grim reaper. |
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
1157
EE: 0% (0)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: What you fail to grasp is that administrative guidelines from ATF are meaningless in the face of a court order. If they attempt to enforce the challenged provisions, they are in contempt of court and can go to jail. It does not matter what "DOJs interpretation of the ruling" is. It is not difficult to know how to proceed here. I have posted it repeatedly in this thread. The NFA requirements are enjoined. The FFL needs to treat the suppressor like any other GCA firearm: 4473, bound book, etc. Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By carbineone1964: Just have to love all these internet warriors wanting a FFL to go pout on a limb for them on. Risking their business, Family, and want them to possibly be imprisoned for you. I know full well that all these so called warriors will fold at the of the ATF on their knees. If actually confronted with the threat of losing all in their lives as they know it. They would turn on other people even to regain their lives back from the ATF. Yes there may be a few that would actually fight back. Maybe ones with lives so pathetic that they are loners and have nothing to lose anyway. I assure you 99 .9 percent of the warriors are all BS talk and would do anything once confronted, except beg for forgiveness, and go back to their homes and Family's. Friend has a Gun Shop and no he would never risk his lively hood for your urge to get a Suppressor just for the simple fact of it has no paperwork, until this is all straightened out. . If you do not want paper work, then just roll your own. Great if this all works out for some. But I am afraid for most. The free stamps are going to remain the best option in the end. Until we actually get Legislative repeal of the NFA. Nothing is going to change at the ATF. What you are missing is that it already has been "straightened out." There is a very clear and well reasoned order from a federal judge. He is the authority here, not some simp on the ATF payroll. Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. What you fail to grasp is that administrative guidelines from ATF are meaningless in the face of a court order. If they attempt to enforce the challenged provisions, they are in contempt of court and can go to jail. It does not matter what "DOJs interpretation of the ruling" is. It is not difficult to know how to proceed here. I have posted it repeatedly in this thread. The NFA requirements are enjoined. The FFL needs to treat the suppressor like any other GCA firearm: 4473, bound book, etc. Not to mention, if literally no one can figure out how to comply, then that is the textbook definition of unconstitutionally vague law and thus unenforceable. |
|
Originally Posted By GGGBeo50: They would rather let the goons make the switches because they are going to do it anyway. Then they would rather prosecute as criminals violate. Almost every case I have seen with a switch charge has multiple other felony drug and violence charges that led to the switch charge. Not many situations where its just a switch charge, usually felony possession of a firearm or possession of a firearm during a felony crime to start. Local courts commonly toss the switch charges out and/or let the feds take it. I promise the feds have way more to deal with than they can handle at this time when it comes to gangbangers with switches. Originally Posted By GGGBeo50: Originally Posted By lorazepam: It would not surprise me if the feds were supplying the switches to the hood rats to try and implement more gun control. They would rather let the goons make the switches because they are going to do it anyway. Then they would rather prosecute as criminals violate. Almost every case I have seen with a switch charge has multiple other felony drug and violence charges that led to the switch charge. Not many situations where its just a switch charge, usually felony possession of a firearm or possession of a firearm during a felony crime to start. Local courts commonly toss the switch charges out and/or let the feds take it. I promise the feds have way more to deal with than they can handle at this time when it comes to gangbangers with switches. The goddamn CIA was running guns to cartels and gangs on the west coast all throughout the 80's and 90's. No shit, they're behind the proliferation of glock switches. Why? Same reason as all the nonsense from USAID, and all the other evil shit they do to screw with other countries and pit motherfuckers against each other. When folks are too busy fighting each other, they can't turn against whoever is manipulating them. |
|
Originally Posted By M41A: This. The courts told ATF what they can’t do, not that they need to come up with what citizens are allowed to do. Yep. I’d go as far as to say the ATF allegedly telling a few FFLs not to transfer on a 4473 is not a violation of the court order. They only violate the order if they arrest/prosecute one or more of the plaintiffs |
Life member of CRPA. FPC contributor.
|
Originally Posted By willi3d: True, but at least he’s admitting he doesn’t know, plus he’s an actual lawyer that can provide facts on the law and legal system works. That’s a lot more than internet commandos who pretend they know everything and who’s only courtroom experience is to contest a DUI charge. The video is nonsense because we have no new information. Just as there has been no new thoughts in last 60+ pages here. 
|
| At some point you got to jump in the pool. Even if the ATF came out and said, here's our new guidelines, free suppressors for errbody, there will still be people posting, "Dont trust them, wait until the next administration" "You're on a list". I mean, what would it take for you all to feel confident youre in the clear. I dont think there's anything that would. |
|
Originally Posted By StevenH: Yep. I’d go as far as to say the ATF allegedly telling a few FFLs not to transfer on a 4473 is not a violation of the court order. They only violate the order if they arrest/prosecute one or more of the plaintiffs Prior restraint? Maybe someday it will be a real right. |
|
I have that exact same printer. Do you have a STL that a brotha could borrow? |
|
Originally Posted By JASIRR: At some point you got to jump in the pool. Even if the ATF came out and said, here's our new guidelines, free suppressors for errbody, there will still be people posting, "Dont trust them, wait until the next administration" "You're on a list". I mean, what would it take for you all to feel confident youre in the clear. I dont think there's anything that would. |
|
Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: What if the FFL improperly released a suppressor to someone not properly covered by the injunction? It would be an easy mistake to make, or they sold a suppressor to someone with a fake membership number to one of the enjoined parties, who's liable for that mistake/deception? I see a lot of nuanced issues here where the ATF could jam someone up if they chose. The ATF is an organization that for decades has tried to break guns to make them function in a way they shouldn't so they could bring charges against individuals. Hell, look at the auto key card guy who laser engraved business cards to look like a DIAS, except it wasn't even dimensionally accurate. How many of those agents ever had to face consequences for things like that? Originally Posted By Coffin-Nail: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By carbineone1964: Just have to love all these internet warriors wanting a FFL to go pout on a limb for them on. Risking their business, Family, and want them to possibly be imprisoned for you. I know full well that all these so called warriors will fold at the of the ATF on their knees. If actually confronted with the threat of losing all in their lives as they know it. They would turn on other people even to regain their lives back from the ATF. Yes there may be a few that would actually fight back. Maybe ones with lives so pathetic that they are loners and have nothing to lose anyway. I assure you 99 .9 percent of the warriors are all BS talk and would do anything once confronted, except beg for forgiveness, and go back to their homes and Family's. Friend has a Gun Shop and no he would never risk his lively hood for your urge to get a Suppressor just for the simple fact of it has no paperwork, until this is all straightened out. . If you do not want paper work, then just roll your own. Great if this all works out for some. But I am afraid for most. The free stamps are going to remain the best option in the end. Until we actually get Legislative repeal of the NFA. Nothing is going to change at the ATF. What you are missing is that it already has been "straightened out." There is a very clear and well reasoned order from a federal judge. He is the authority here, not some simp on the ATF payroll. Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. What you fail to grasp is that administrative guidelines from ATF are meaningless in the face of a court order. If they attempt to enforce the challenged provisions, they are in contempt of court and can go to jail. It does not matter what "DOJs interpretation of the ruling" is. It is not difficult to know how to proceed here. I have posted it repeatedly in this thread. The NFA requirements are enjoined. The FFL needs to treat the suppressor like any other GCA firearm: 4473, bound book, etc. What if the FFL improperly released a suppressor to someone not properly covered by the injunction? It would be an easy mistake to make, or they sold a suppressor to someone with a fake membership number to one of the enjoined parties, who's liable for that mistake/deception? I see a lot of nuanced issues here where the ATF could jam someone up if they chose. The ATF is an organization that for decades has tried to break guns to make them function in a way they shouldn't so they could bring charges against individuals. Hell, look at the auto key card guy who laser engraved business cards to look like a DIAS, except it wasn't even dimensionally accurate. How many of those agents ever had to face consequences for things like that? One thing I have been thinking this entire time is it will have to be all or nothing. There is no way to figure out the GOA membership BS by a cop, ATF agent, Gun store etc. That factor will break loose in when the guidelines hit is my guess. |
|
Originally Posted By _disconnector_: I have that exact same printer. Do you have a STL that a brotha could borrow? |
"Fully-loaded, safety off. This here is a recipe for unpleasantness." - Malcom Reynolds
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
|
Originally Posted By Coati: My question is short of capture that in the federal register (a months long process from start to solidification), what is to stop the IOI from deciding tomorrow he changed his mind and the second case reverts to the first. I cannot account for that otherwise than referring to first principles of the injunction, that override the arbitrary and capricious opinion of an IOI. Something that can be declared one way without process, can be declared another way without process. Hence the gazillion police videos of police giving their unbinding opinion and then tomorrow they magically change their mind or completely forget about what they said to induce the victim to their desired goal, much to the chagrin of the mark. Originally Posted By Coati: My question is short of capture that in the federal register (a months long process from start to solidification), what is to stop the IOI from deciding tomorrow he changed his mind and the second case reverts to the first. I cannot account for that otherwise than referring to first principles of the injunction, that override the arbitrary and capricious opinion of an IOI. Something that can be declared one way without process, can be declared another way without process. Hence the gazillion police videos of police giving their unbinding opinion and then tomorrow they magically change their mind or completely forget about what they said to induce the victim to their desired goal, much to the chagrin of the mark. There's a big difference between published guidance from the ATF vs the opinion of a single IOI. Your comparison to a cop promising something they have no authority to guarantee is irrelevant. Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: What you fail to grasp is that administrative guidelines from ATF are meaningless in the face of a court order. If they attempt to enforce the challenged provisions, they are in contempt of court and can go to jail. It does not matter what "DOJs interpretation of the ruling" is. It is not difficult to know how to proceed here. I have posted it repeatedly in this thread. The NFA requirements are enjoined. The FFL needs to treat the suppressor like any other GCA firearm: 4473, bound book, etc. There are still a lot of rules that can/may be enforced that do not meet the threshold for contempt. What if the ATF says that FFL's are required to notify the ATF to update their eforms inventory within 24 hours of a 4473 transfer? What if they create a new form that's required to move NFA items out of their eforms inventory and must be completed after each transfer? The dealers doing transfers now would not meet those requirements. These actions do not violate the court order because they aren't enforcing the challenged provisions against a plaintiff, but it could easily result in action being taken against the FFL. Simply saying "you didn't log these correctly and your paperwork is wrong" is not an enforcement of the challenged provision. What if the ATF says that Silencer Shop retail customers are not in the plantiff class because the Silencer Shop Foundation is a separate legal entity? How many people does that affect that have done transfers under this assumption? It's not hard to see how the ATF can comply with this injunction while still tripping up FFLs for proceeding before guidance is issued. |
|
Originally Posted By StevenH: I’d go as far as to say the ATF allegedly telling a few FFLs not to transfer on a 4473 is not a violation of the court order. They only violate the order if they arrest/prosecute one or more of the plaintiffs To add to that, revoking an FFL doesn't involve an arrest or prosecution, it's administrative. The ATF can put an FFL out of business in a day. |
Heller II - Challenging DC's bans on semi-automatic rifles, large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, and its onerous and expensive handgun registration process. http://www.HellerFoundation.org/
|
Originally Posted By Bubbles: To add to that, revoking an FFL doesn't involve an arrest or prosecution, it's administrative. The ATF can put an FFL out of business in a day. Originally Posted By Bubbles: Originally Posted By StevenH: I’d go as far as to say the ATF allegedly telling a few FFLs not to transfer on a 4473 is not a violation of the court order. They only violate the order if they arrest/prosecute one or more of the plaintiffs To add to that, revoking an FFL doesn't involve an arrest or prosecution, it's administrative. The ATF can put an FFL out of business in a day. Which would also be contempt of court. |
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9 (ESV)
How do I get out of this chickenshit outfit?
Joined:
Feb 2011
Posts:
16467
EE: 100% (22)
TX, USA
|
Originally Posted By inkaybee: Prior restraint? Maybe someday it will be a real right. Originally Posted By inkaybee: Originally Posted By StevenH: Yep. I’d go as far as to say the ATF allegedly telling a few FFLs not to transfer on a 4473 is not a violation of the court order. They only violate the order if they arrest/prosecute one or more of the plaintiffs Prior restraint? Maybe someday it will be a real right.  Oh, please, dear for your information the supreme court has rejected prior restraint |
|
Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Which would also be contempt of court. Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By Bubbles: Originally Posted By StevenH: I’d go as far as to say the ATF allegedly telling a few FFLs not to transfer on a 4473 is not a violation of the court order. They only violate the order if they arrest/prosecute one or more of the plaintiffs To add to that, revoking an FFL doesn't involve an arrest or prosecution, it's administrative. The ATF can put an FFL out of business in a day. Which would also be contempt of court. The FFL would still lose, even if they won. |
Joined:
Jun 2025
Posts:
1158
EE: 0% (0)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By graysonp: There's a big difference between published guidance from the ATF vs the opinion of a single IOI. Your comparison to a cop promising something they have no authority to guarantee is irrelevant. Originally Posted By graysonp: Originally Posted By Coati: My question is short of capture that in the federal register (a months long process from start to solidification), what is to stop the IOI from deciding tomorrow he changed his mind and the second case reverts to the first. I cannot account for that otherwise than referring to first principles of the injunction, that override the arbitrary and capricious opinion of an IOI. Something that can be declared one way without process, can be declared another way without process. Hence the gazillion police videos of police giving their unbinding opinion and then tomorrow they magically change their mind or completely forget about what they said to induce the victim to their desired goal, much to the chagrin of the mark. There's a big difference between published guidance from the ATF vs the opinion of a single IOI. Your comparison to a cop promising something they have no authority to guarantee is irrelevant. This is totally non-responsive, I'm not sure what you're meaning to add by saying it. If you suppose I'm not allowed to use un-equal comparisons, it still doesn't provide a response other than making you a bit jolly for being the gazillionth person to realize no analogy is perfect. If you want to present the case ATF puts a super duper super official stamp on it, it doesn't overcome the fact that what can be said without process can be said another way without process, maybe with a super duper official stamp on letter head the next time. The injunction here is the superseding document in either case and the guidance isn't offering a durable cure of the underlying fear of the FFL. They are using it as a talisman, and relying on superstition to think it would cure their underlying fear. The only durable defense I see for acts during the injunction period is the injunction. Short of an entry in the federal register. ATF man on his super fancy letter head, that totally can't be compared to a beat cop promising something, can write whatever the hell he wants today, tomorrow, or the next and put a big heading on it that says "super official published guidance of the veritable, never lying ATF" and have it say opposite and conflicting things and one won't be more binding than the other. I would assert anyone that relies on that shaky ground rather than the injunction, is nothing further than a fool. |
|
That would take me 5 days, I would be so anxious |
|
Originally Posted By DPeacher: Apparently congress has the power to levy a greater than $0 tax on anything they please, then assign huge fines and prison sentences to anyone who doesn't pay the tax. Originally Posted By DPeacher: Originally Posted By 1Andy2: What if they passed a law forbidding women from having more than 2 children? Would that be constitutional? Why or why not? Apparently congress has the power to levy a greater than $0 tax on anything they please, then assign huge fines and prison sentences to anyone who doesn't pay the tax. People need to remember that congress exists because we ALLOW it to... and it has ONLY those powers we give it. The "congress can do whatever it wants so long as there's a tax attached" thing is abhorrent. |
Never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end—which you can never afford to lose—with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be. - Adm James Stockdale
|
Originally Posted By graysonp: There's a big difference between published guidance from the ATF vs the opinion of a single IOI. Your comparison to a cop promising something they have no authority to guarantee is irrelevant. There are still a lot of rules that can/may be enforced that do not meet the threshold for contempt. What if the ATF says that FFL's are required to notify the ATF to update their eforms inventory within 24 hours of a 4473 transfer? What if they create a new form that's required to move NFA items out of their eforms inventory and must be completed after each transfer? The dealers doing transfers now would not meet those requirements. These actions do not violate the court order because they aren't enforcing the challenged provisions against a plaintiff, but it could easily result in action being taken against the FFL. Simply saying "you didn't log these correctly and your paperwork is wrong" is not an enforcement of the challenged provision. What if the ATF says that Silencer Shop retail customers are not in the plantiff class because the Silencer Shop Foundation is a separate legal entity? How many people does that affect that have done transfers under this assumption? It's not hard to see how the ATF can comply with this injunction while still tripping up FFLs for proceeding before guidance is issued. Originally Posted By graysonp: Originally Posted By Coati: My question is short of capture that in the federal register (a months long process from start to solidification), what is to stop the IOI from deciding tomorrow he changed his mind and the second case reverts to the first. I cannot account for that otherwise than referring to first principles of the injunction, that override the arbitrary and capricious opinion of an IOI. Something that can be declared one way without process, can be declared another way without process. Hence the gazillion police videos of police giving their unbinding opinion and then tomorrow they magically change their mind or completely forget about what they said to induce the victim to their desired goal, much to the chagrin of the mark. There's a big difference between published guidance from the ATF vs the opinion of a single IOI. Your comparison to a cop promising something they have no authority to guarantee is irrelevant. Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: What you fail to grasp is that administrative guidelines from ATF are meaningless in the face of a court order. If they attempt to enforce the challenged provisions, they are in contempt of court and can go to jail. It does not matter what "DOJs interpretation of the ruling" is. It is not difficult to know how to proceed here. I have posted it repeatedly in this thread. The NFA requirements are enjoined. The FFL needs to treat the suppressor like any other GCA firearm: 4473, bound book, etc. There are still a lot of rules that can/may be enforced that do not meet the threshold for contempt. What if the ATF says that FFL's are required to notify the ATF to update their eforms inventory within 24 hours of a 4473 transfer? What if they create a new form that's required to move NFA items out of their eforms inventory and must be completed after each transfer? The dealers doing transfers now would not meet those requirements. These actions do not violate the court order because they aren't enforcing the challenged provisions against a plaintiff, but it could easily result in action being taken against the FFL. Simply saying "you didn't log these correctly and your paperwork is wrong" is not an enforcement of the challenged provision. What if the ATF says that Silencer Shop retail customers are not in the plantiff class because the Silencer Shop Foundation is a separate legal entity? How many people does that affect that have done transfers under this assumption? It's not hard to see how the ATF can comply with this injunction while still tripping up FFLs for proceeding before guidance is issued. The ATF doesn’t have the authority to decide who the plaintiffs are in the Silencer Shop case. Stop giving them more power than they think they already have. |
|
Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: What you fail to grasp is that administrative guidelines from ATF are meaningless in the face of a court order. If they attempt to enforce the challenged provisions, they are in contempt of court and can go to jail. It does not matter what "DOJs interpretation of the ruling" is. It is not difficult to know how to proceed here. I have posted it repeatedly in this thread. The NFA requirements are enjoined. The FFL needs to treat the suppressor like any other GCA firearm: 4473, bound book, etc. Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By carbineone1964: Just have to love all these internet warriors wanting a FFL to go pout on a limb for them on. Risking their business, Family, and want them to possibly be imprisoned for you. I know full well that all these so called warriors will fold at the of the ATF on their knees. If actually confronted with the threat of losing all in their lives as they know it. They would turn on other people even to regain their lives back from the ATF. Yes there may be a few that would actually fight back. Maybe ones with lives so pathetic that they are loners and have nothing to lose anyway. I assure you 99 .9 percent of the warriors are all BS talk and would do anything once confronted, except beg for forgiveness, and go back to their homes and Family's. Friend has a Gun Shop and no he would never risk his lively hood for your urge to get a Suppressor just for the simple fact of it has no paperwork, until this is all straightened out. . If you do not want paper work, then just roll your own. Great if this all works out for some. But I am afraid for most. The free stamps are going to remain the best option in the end. Until we actually get Legislative repeal of the NFA. Nothing is going to change at the ATF. What you are missing is that it already has been "straightened out." There is a very clear and well reasoned order from a federal judge. He is the authority here, not some simp on the ATF payroll. Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. What you fail to grasp is that administrative guidelines from ATF are meaningless in the face of a court order. If they attempt to enforce the challenged provisions, they are in contempt of court and can go to jail. It does not matter what "DOJs interpretation of the ruling" is. It is not difficult to know how to proceed here. I have posted it repeatedly in this thread. The NFA requirements are enjoined. The FFL needs to treat the suppressor like any other GCA firearm: 4473, bound book, etc. What you "fail to grasp" is that all of this has a significant gray area over which the ATF has more or less uncontested authority. To do business, FFLs enter a deal with the devil. They can only do what the ATF says they can, how the ATF says they can. It's Simon Says, but with a giant regulatory gun pointed at your head. The ATF can require and enforce documentation requirements that exist outside of the court order (just like they do with every other codified law), and they have a long and established history of torpedoing FFLs for clerical errors. There's nothing in this court order that says ATF can't require FFLs to do X, Y, and Z to report the removal of an NFA item from the NFRTR, nor is there anything protecting FFLs if the ATF decides that wasn't done correctly. I think we have the right guys in the Oval Office, the AG office, and the ATF Director's office, but there are still hostile parties within the ATF, and enforcement policies can change with the flip of a switch with the next administration. Either way, it's not smart for FFLs to process ATF legal documents in a manner for which they have no instructions from the ATF. |
"Sometimes, the grass is greener because it's on a septic system."
"Sporterizing: The art of spending $700 on a $300 gun to make it worth $200." -GTwannabe
"Sporterizing: The art of spending $700 on a $300 gun to make it worth $200." -GTwannabe
|
Originally Posted By X-CaptHook: The ATF doesn’t have the authority to decide who the plaintiffs are in the Silencer Shop case. Stop giving them more power than they think they already have. The plantiff listed says "The Silencer Shop Foundation" and includes all customers, present and future. I have never bought anything from The Silencer Shop Foundation, but I have from Silencer Shop. Does it say in the judgement that I am a plantiff? It's an honest question, I don't know the answer and haven't seen it from reading the judgement for myself. |
|
Originally Posted By apierce918: That would take me 5 days, I would be so anxious |
"Fully-loaded, safety off. This here is a recipe for unpleasantness." - Malcom Reynolds
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
|
Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: What you "fail to grasp" is that all of this has a significant gray area over which the ATF has more or less uncontested authority. To do business, FFLs enter a deal with the devil. They can only do what the ATF says they can, how the ATF says they can. It's Simon Says, but with a giant regulatory gun pointed at your head. The ATF can require and enforce documentation requirements that exist outside of the court order (just like they do with every other codified law), and they have a long and established history of torpedoing FFLs for clerical errors. There's nothing in this court order that says ATF can't require FFLs to do X, Y, and Z to report the removal of an NFA item from the NFRTR, nor is there anything protecting FFLs if the ATF decides that wasn't done correctly. I think we have the right guys in the Oval Office, the AG office, and the ATF Director's office, but there are still hostile parties within the ATF, and enforcement policies can change with the flip of a switch with the next administration. Either way, it's not smart for FFLs to process ATF legal documents in a manner for which they have no instructions from the ATF. Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By GenYRevolverGuy: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: Originally Posted By carbineone1964: Just have to love all these internet warriors wanting a FFL to go pout on a limb for them on. Risking their business, Family, and want them to possibly be imprisoned for you. I know full well that all these so called warriors will fold at the of the ATF on their knees. If actually confronted with the threat of losing all in their lives as they know it. They would turn on other people even to regain their lives back from the ATF. Yes there may be a few that would actually fight back. Maybe ones with lives so pathetic that they are loners and have nothing to lose anyway. I assure you 99 .9 percent of the warriors are all BS talk and would do anything once confronted, except beg for forgiveness, and go back to their homes and Family's. Friend has a Gun Shop and no he would never risk his lively hood for your urge to get a Suppressor just for the simple fact of it has no paperwork, until this is all straightened out. . If you do not want paper work, then just roll your own. Great if this all works out for some. But I am afraid for most. The free stamps are going to remain the best option in the end. Until we actually get Legislative repeal of the NFA. Nothing is going to change at the ATF. What you are missing is that it already has been "straightened out." There is a very clear and well reasoned order from a federal judge. He is the authority here, not some simp on the ATF payroll. Except it hasn't. Everything an FFL does with firearms and NFA items is based on written guidelines from the ATF. Those guidelines, related to this injunction, do NOT exist yet. You should revisit this post: https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Federal-Court-Strikes-Down-NFA-Registration-on-untaxed-firearms/5-2853946/?page=111#i117428947 The ATF can absolutely comply with the judge's order while simultaneously ass-blasting FFLs and ruining lives for logging NFA items incorrectly. How do FFLs log these transactions correctly? Nobody knows yet. Running these transactions without knowing the DOJ's interpretation of the ruling and without having anything in writing from the ATF is insanely risky. What you fail to grasp is that administrative guidelines from ATF are meaningless in the face of a court order. If they attempt to enforce the challenged provisions, they are in contempt of court and can go to jail. It does not matter what "DOJs interpretation of the ruling" is. It is not difficult to know how to proceed here. I have posted it repeatedly in this thread. The NFA requirements are enjoined. The FFL needs to treat the suppressor like any other GCA firearm: 4473, bound book, etc. What you "fail to grasp" is that all of this has a significant gray area over which the ATF has more or less uncontested authority. To do business, FFLs enter a deal with the devil. They can only do what the ATF says they can, how the ATF says they can. It's Simon Says, but with a giant regulatory gun pointed at your head. The ATF can require and enforce documentation requirements that exist outside of the court order (just like they do with every other codified law), and they have a long and established history of torpedoing FFLs for clerical errors. There's nothing in this court order that says ATF can't require FFLs to do X, Y, and Z to report the removal of an NFA item from the NFRTR, nor is there anything protecting FFLs if the ATF decides that wasn't done correctly. I think we have the right guys in the Oval Office, the AG office, and the ATF Director's office, but there are still hostile parties within the ATF, and enforcement policies can change with the flip of a switch with the next administration. Either way, it's not smart for FFLs to process ATF legal documents in a manner for which they have no instructions from the ATF. In which states are you licensed to practice law, sir? |
"If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." Romans 10:9 (ESV)
|
Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: In which states are you licensed to practice law, sir? So is your opinion that if the ATF requires a simple form to remove NFA items from a dealers Eforms Inventory, they will be in contempt of this order? You seem to be suggesting that this is a ridiculous idea for anyone to be asking that question. |
|
Originally Posted By trails-end: We need a non-editable tacked thread with the facts and none of the bullshit. One hundred ten pages of facts and bullshit is a lot to parse. Originally Posted By trails-end: Originally Posted By MikeDeltaFoxtrot: I have personally explained that in this thread at least a dozen times. We need a non-editable tacked thread with the facts and none of the bullshit. One hundred ten pages of facts and bullshit is a lot to parse. The signal to noise in here is rough |
|
Originally Posted By tripntx: Which brand and model printer are you printing those on? |
"Fully-loaded, safety off. This here is a recipe for unpleasantness." - Malcom Reynolds
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
"He's a precision-guided asshole who only deploys on deserving targets." - Grok
|
Originally Posted By M41A: Originally Posted By inkaybee: Originally Posted By StevenH: Yep. I’d go as far as to say the ATF allegedly telling a few FFLs not to transfer on a 4473 is not a violation of the court order. They only violate the order if they arrest/prosecute one or more of the plaintiffs Prior restraint? Maybe someday it will be a real right.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE_pxDxQRq4Well done. Exactly how I picture this thread LOL |