Posted: 12/23/2023 12:15:30 PM EDT
|
FYI, I’ve been trying to get a 5320.20 approved to bring a DD into SD. ATF has been denying based on their re-interpretation of SD state law. This has been ongoing since September. Does anybody know any good SD elected officials who can set ATF straight? You can learn more here. |
|
Originally Posted By prebans: FYI, I've been trying to get a 5320.20 approved to bring a DD into SD. ATF has been denying based on their re-interpretation of SD state law. This has been ongoing since September. Does anybody know any good SD elected officials who can set ATF straight? You can learn more here. |
|
Update on this: Fire Marshal (His office handles explosives permitting) is now working with ATF trying to get to bottom of this. He apologized for delay on it, it was from the state legal end. He looked as far back as records showed and there is zero history of issuing of "DD permits" in SD and his office is not equipped to issue them. Overall positive vibes with a promise of an update later this week hopefully. |
|
Originally Posted By m62-m76: There are No Restrictions in SD. Guess again, ATF making a huge deal out of the law being slightly unclear. More details in the thread: https://www.ar15.com/forums/Armory/Any-problem-with-DDs-in-SD-5320-20-disapproved-per-state-law-/21-546727/ |
|
Originally Posted By m62-m76: Well, Biden running the country.... But even still, I just found several sites saying they are Legal in SD. They are absolutely legal in SD, hundreds are in state right at this moment. ATF is just being difficult about getting them approved. They are reading 22-1-2 and denying them before reading 22-14A-21. Malice or legal fail? Nobody knows but im trying to get it straight for everyone S. D. Codified Laws § 22-1-2. Any person who possesses any substance, material, or any combination of substances or materials, with intent to make a destructive device without first obtaining a permit from Department of Public Safety to make said device is guilty of a Felony. § 22-14A-13. [... bunch of other stuff] 22-14A-21. Possession of registered or licensed destructive devices permitted. Any person may possess destructive devices that are registered with, or licensed by, the state or federal government pursuant to law. |
|
Update: Got a DD 5320.20 approved for SD. I called the Souix Falls IOI and left a voicemail. He called back and we talked. I emailed him a request for the 5320.20 which he passed to NFA, NFA quickly replied back that 22-14A-13 (https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/22-14A-13) required a permit. Emailed the IOI back with SD CL 22-14A-21 (https://sdlegislature.gov/Statutes/22-14A-21), IOI passed it to the Industry Processing Branch of NFA Division, They asked for a new 5320.20 to be emailed in, couple hours later they emailed back a 5320.20 for a Form 1 Destructive Device being permanently moved into South Dakota. Further forms should be approved based upon this new interpretation of the legal code I provided them. If anyone hits walls on this in the future please send me a PM and I will give you even more support. This concludes a year long battle  between state and federal agencies. |
|
NFA was asked to investigate the below reports of previous destructive device (DD) application denials in South Dakota. Upon careful review, we have determined that firearm/launcher type DDs are legal pursuant to South Dakota law, so long as they are registered in the NFRTR. Our state law spreadsheet has been updated, and our examiner staff have been reminded that these sorts of applications (Form 1, Form 4 and Form 20) should be approved in South Dakota provided that all other information on the application is correct and a clean background comes back. I would recommend that Mr. XXXXX resubmit his applications and we will review them under the current guidance. Please let me know if there are any other questions. Stephen B. Albro | Chief, National Firearms Act Division Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives 244 Needy Road, Room 1118 Martinsburg, WV 25405 2 different state fire marshals 2.5 years of emails 7 different people at ATF ~8hr on the phone Id like to thank Senator Amber Hulse, South Dakota State Fire Marshal and all of the people who let me know their DDs were being blocked. Every single case, set of dates and type of form yall told me about was leveraged to prove this systemic misinterpretation of SD state law. I dont think ATF was doing this out of malice but rather a legit mistake in policy and that policy being pushed down. Go buy a 203 |