Armory Sponsor
Posted: 11/17/2011 10:36:23 PM EDT
| I was browsing through the Storm Rifle NFA section the other day and kept seeing Pre and Post sample MG's and was wondering what the difference is between Pre and Post Sample. |
|
Copied from another site:
Machineguns were first restricted in 1934. From that point forward, they required government registration and a $200 tax. However, you could get your MG from anywhere–– bring it back from a war, buy it outside the country and carry it in, make it here... Anything went. In 1968, the Gun Control Act was passed. Among other things, it restricted foreign machineguns (or domestic ones that were exported and later re-imported) to only being owned by dealers. Dealers could keep these after giving up their licenses, though. In 1986, the FOPA passed. Among other things, it banned any MG made after 05/19/1986 from civilian ownership. Dealers and manufacturers could possess them, but had to give them up or destroy them if they gave up their license. Thus: "Presample" is a foreign gun imported and registered between '68-'86. "Postsample" is ANY gun registered after 05/19/1986. "Fully transferrable" is any foreign gun registered before '68 and any domestic gun registered before 05/19/1986. |
|
Quoted: I was browsing through the Storm Rifle NFA section the other day and kept seeing Pre and Post sample MG's and was wondering what the difference is between Pre and Post Sample. Generally they are only for sale to FFLs. A Pre sample is MG imported between 11/1968 and 5/19/86. A Post sample is a MG imported or made after 5/19/1986. The big difference is an FFL can keep a Pre-Sample when he gives up his license, a Post-Sample he cannot (must destroy, sell to another FFL, etc). Also, FFLs can easily buy Pre-Samples like any other NFA, while Post-Samples require a "demo-letter", from a qualified agency requesting a demo the specific MG. |
|
Quoted: a as in one?Quoted: I was browsing through the Storm Rifle NFA section the other day and kept seeing Pre and Post sample MG's and was wondering what the difference is between Pre and Post Sample. Generally they are only for sale to FFLs. A Pre sample is MG imported between 11/1968 and 5/19/86. A Post sample is a MG imported or made after 5/19/1986. The big difference is an FFL can keep a Pre-Sample when he gives up his license, a Post-Sample he cannot (must destroy, sell to another FFL, etc). Also, FFLs can easily buy Pre-Samples like any other NFA, while Post-Samples require a "demo-letter", from a qualified agency requesting a demo the specific MG. Or as many as he can get? |
|
Quoted:
And SOTs do not pay a Tax Stamp on Pre-samples, right? Depends on who it's coming from. If a former SOT gave up their license, and has a pre-sample they wish to sell, it transfers tax-paid on Form 4. Form 3 is for current SOTs only. Form 5 is for gov't agencies, and certain specific tax-free transfers like inheritance or repairs. |
|
Quoted:
So a dealer that gives up his SOT/FFL/Etc. can keep a Pre-sample Machine Gun as a citizen. Can said ex-SOT holder then transfer the pre-sample to a normal citizen? Afterall, that person is a nothing now too.. No, because the weapon is still a pre-sample, not a transferable. It can only go to an active SOT. |
|
Quoted:
But someone that is a lowly citizen just like us that happened to be an SOT in a former life can own it?  That's weird. What makes them more special then us when they retire?Because they were an SOT and you weren't. Sorry to have to tell you, but life is not fair. |
|
Quoted:
But someone that is a lowly citizen just like us that happened to be an SOT in a former life can own it? That's weird. What makes them more special then us when they retire?Better bet is to have a corp or LLC named on the FFL/SOT, and the corp can own the weapons as long as its an active entity. So the guns can be owned for as long as the family, or friends, keep the corp running. 
|
| I'm sure this question has been asked/answered ad nauseum, but how do movie production companies get their hands on current FA weapons? I realize some are special effects, but others are clearly real. I'm thinking the "demo" letter wouldn't work for multiple examples of the same weapon. |
|
Quoted:
I'm sure this question has been asked/answered ad nauseum, but how do movie production companies get their hands on current FA weapons? I realize some are special effects, but others are clearly real. I'm thinking the "demo" letter wouldn't work for multiple examples of the same weapon. I would assume that they are ffls and sots or contract with someone who is. But aside from that NFA laws have to some of the most retarded laws in this country. |
|
Quoted:
I'm sure this question has been asked/answered ad nauseum, but how do movie production companies get their hands on current FA weapons? I realize some are special effects, but others are clearly real. I'm thinking the "demo" letter wouldn't work for multiple examples of the same weapon. It is also possible that they are using blank firing only mock ups that are not classified as firearms or shooting sequences involving real machineguns outside the US in countries that have more MG friendly (for big money corporations at least) laws. Money can, after all, be used to get around almost anything. |
|
Quoted:
I'm sure this question has been asked/answered ad nauseum, but how do movie production companies get their hands on current FA weapons? I realize some are special effects, but others are clearly real. I'm thinking the "demo" letter wouldn't work for multiple examples of the same weapon. They rent from companies that can provide post-samples converted to shoot blanks and/or non-firing mock-ups. The company provides an employee/gunsmith while the gun is needed on-site. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm sure this question has been asked/answered ad nauseum, but how do movie production companies get their hands on current FA weapons? I realize some are special effects, but others are clearly real. I'm thinking the "demo" letter wouldn't work for multiple examples of the same weapon. They rent from companies that can provide post-samples converted to shoot blanks and/or non-firing mock-ups. The company provides an employee/gunsmith while the gun is needed on-site. I thought a MG that can only fire blanks, no matter when it was made, is neither a MG nor a Firearm.. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm sure this question has been asked/answered ad nauseum, but how do movie production companies get their hands on current FA weapons? I realize some are special effects, but others are clearly real. I'm thinking the "demo" letter wouldn't work for multiple examples of the same weapon. They rent from companies that can provide post-samples converted to shoot blanks and/or non-firing mock-ups. The company provides an employee/gunsmith while the gun is needed on-site. I thought a MG that can only fire blanks, no matter when it was made, is neither a MG nor a Firearm.. Nope. In many cases the conversion back and forth is pretty straightforward. |
|
Quoted:
I thought a MG that can only fire blanks, no matter when it was made, is neither a MG nor a Firearm.. If a blank firing automatic "gun" is truly a non-gun, then it is not a machinegun - since that definition only applies to actual firearms, and conversion devices or receivers thereof. That said, there are automatic blank-firing non-guns. They must differ substantially in dimensions and (in many cases) design from any actual firearms so that they cannot be converted back and forth, without essentially building/rebuilding from them from scratch. Simply adapting an existing machinegun to fire blanks does not (in the US) exempt it from regulation as a machinegun. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I thought a MG that can only fire blanks, no matter when it was made, is neither a MG nor a Firearm.. If a blank firing automatic "gun" is truly a non-gun, then it is not a machinegun - since that definition only applies to actual firearms, and conversion devices or receivers thereof. That said, there are automatic blank-firing non-guns. They must differ substantially in dimensions and (in many cases) design from any actual firearms so that they cannot be converted back and forth, without essentially building/rebuilding from them from scratch. Simply adapting an existing machinegun to fire blanks does not (in the US) exempt it from regulation as a machinegun. Yep I have seen a PPsH that uses a blow forward design that utilizes 8mm blanks. Essentially the blanks are fed "backwards" into the gun ... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Post samples need to have FFL/SOT with LE Demo letter. I dont want to hijack the thread but...what happens to the rifle after the demo? Can the FFL/SOT keep it in inventory for other demos, return to manufacturer, or must sell to LE? The FFL/SOT can keep it as long as he keeps his FFL/SOT, or he can sell it to another FFL/SOT who has a demo letter. If he gives up the SOT then he can either destroy it, turn it over to the ATF, or sell it to an 01/C3 dealer who has a demo letter, or to an 07/C2 manufacturer without a demo letter. |
|
Quoted:
The bottom line is that unless you are a machine gun dealer, you can't own either. Are or were–– or are SUPPOSED to be. Here's the law as it is supposed to work: A pre-sample is ANY NFA weapon imported or re-imported (i.e. US-manufactured gun exported and later imported back into the USA) after November 1968. A post-sample is any machine gun registered after 05/19/1986. "Pre-sample" is generally only used to describe a machine gun. However, as it encompasses all NFA imported/reimported after November 1968, you can have things like pre-sample SBRs (I'm seeing a few Sig 55x pre-samples out there), suppressors (I'll see one from Europe every now and again), SBSes (I have a 14" Benelli M1 that was imported as a 14" model in my inventory right now), and destructive devices (a standalone 40mm HK AG-C/EGLM comes up every now and again). I haven't seen any pre-sample restricted AOWs, though this isn't to say that they don't exist. The rule is that only SOTs, LE, and government agencies can have pre-sample restricted stuff. These items transfer without any additional garbage, though- no demonstration letters are needed to transfer once they're in country. (Getting them in country if they're not already here is a different animal, and I know little to nothing about the import process.) The cool thing for SOTs is that any pre-samples in inventory may be kept upon surrendering one's license. Future transfer, though, is tax-due (as you're no longer a licensee- it's free if you still have the SOT) and transfer is restricted to SOTs, LE, and government agencies. Now, this is THEORY. It normally works, but occasionally ATF screws up and forgets to note the pre-sample restriction in the registry. In the case of that Benelli M1 above, it was part of a massive pile that came from a LE agency. They were all imported as 14" SBSes–– thus restricted as pre-samples. But since the restriction wasn't noted and the purchasing SOT was too lazy to look into their status, they were sold as normal transferable guns for $700+ each or so. Half a year later, ATF noticed their error and sent letters to all owners advising them of the error. All pending transfers were denied. Registered owners where the transfer already went through were given a choice- keep the gun but all future transfers were restricted as pre-samples OR ATF would reverse the transfer and refund the $200.00 transfer tax. IIRC most kept the gun, though there was some grumbling with the SOT regarding whether a price adjustment was appropriate. The dealer's existing stock was all declared pre-samples. I think he lost a lot of money on that deal, and I know he got a lot of ill will out of it. Any how, I picked mine up for $300.00 on a tax-free F3 from another dealer who bought up some of the original dealer's now-presample stock. Can't beat a Benelli M1 14" for that! 
This has also happened with MGs. In some cases, ATF never finds out and the owner has no clue either. Transfers just continue on and on with no one being the wiser. In other cases, ATF finds out gives the registered owner the same choice- keep it and it's a pre-sample or they'll reverse the transfer. I've yet to hear of anybody returning the MG, though I have heard owners ponder suing the seller for the difference in value. (I have never heard of any such suit going past the "bitch-about-it-at-the-bar" stage.) FWIW, ATF never gives an option when they discover it's a post-sample. The transfer is voided and the owner loses the gun. Pre-samples are a great deal for dealers, especially those who know what they LOVE and want to keep for life. In some cases (Czech Skorpion SMG), they're the only game in town other than posties. I've got a pre-sample Uzi and that Benelli M1 on my books, and I strongly suspect that they'll remain there forever. More may be in my future. 
Mike |
|
Quoted:
<Clip> Mike I love reading this stuff , for some reason it's fascinating . It demonstrates how the whole process needs to be revamped , no matter what side of the issue you are on. The question being , of course, is who the revamp makes happier , the pro or anti gun forces . |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
<Clip> Mike I love reading this stuff , for some reason it's fascinating . It demonstrates how the whole process needs to be revamped , no matter what side of the issue you are on. The question being , of course, is who the revamp makes happier , the pro or anti gun forces . More fun is when original registration papers are screwed up. A rifle caliber MG is papered as a .25 auto. Do you leave it alone or try to correct the error, knowing full well that someone is going to think you're trying to radically alter a MG, which is a big no-no? (Dealt with that on one of my inventory guns.) Or how about a busy clerk during the '68 amnesty who registered a Grease Gun (a MG) as a SBR, and no one bothered to try to correct it until 2005? That was fun to fix. Or cases where someone who did a F1 build of a MG before 1986 engraved the barrel or the bipod instead of the receiver? Yup, they're out there. Registered receivers with permanently married serialized conversion pieces..? Mike |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<Clip> Mike I love reading this stuff , for some reason it's fascinating . It demonstrates how the whole process needs to be revamped , no matter what side of the issue you are on. The question being , of course, is who the revamp makes happier , the pro or anti gun forces . More fun is when original registration papers are screwed up. A rifle caliber MG is papered as a .25 auto. Do you leave it alone or try to correct the error, knowing full well that someone is going to think you're trying to radically alter a MG, which is a big no-no? (Dealt with that on one of my inventory guns.) Or how about a busy clerk during the '68 amnesty who registered a Grease Gun (a MG) as a SBR, and no one bothered to try to correct it until 2005? That was fun to fix. Or cases where someone who did a F1 build of a MG before 1986 engraved the barrel or the bipod instead of the receiver? Yup, they're out there. Registered receivers with permanently married serialized conversion pieces..? Mike Reminds me of the people who have the attitude of "Well if the ATF approved the form 1/4 then it must be right" especially as it pertains to trusts. Eventually someone will get a bug up their ass in ATF and disapprove a bunch of recent transfers. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<Clip> Mike I love reading this stuff , for some reason it's fascinating . It demonstrates how the whole process needs to be revamped , no matter what side of the issue you are on. The question being , of course, is who the revamp makes happier , the pro or anti gun forces . More fun is when original registration papers are screwed up. A rifle caliber MG is papered as a .25 auto. Do you leave it alone or try to correct the error, knowing full well that someone is going to think you're trying to radically alter a MG, which is a big no-no? (Dealt with that on one of my inventory guns.) Or how about a busy clerk during the '68 amnesty who registered a Grease Gun (a MG) as a SBR, and no one bothered to try to correct it until 2005? That was fun to fix. Or cases where someone who did a F1 build of a MG before 1986 engraved the barrel or the bipod instead of the receiver? Yup, they're out there. Registered receivers with permanently married serialized conversion pieces..? Mike Reminds me of the people who have the attitude of "Well if the ATF approved the form 1/4 then it must be right" especially as it pertains to trusts. Eventually someone will get a bug up their ass in ATF and disapprove a bunch of recent transfers. Disapproving of transfers is one thing. When a Trust or corporation is declared invalid, the NFA held by that entity becomes contraband. That's what concerns me- otherwise lawful NFA weapons meeting the smelters because some moron decided to save time and money by doing Quicken Willmaker over paying a few hundred more and having an attorney keep it 100% legal. Mike |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'm sure this question has been asked/answered ad nauseum, but how do movie production companies get their hands on current FA weapons? I realize some are special effects, but others are clearly real. I'm thinking the "demo" letter wouldn't work for multiple examples of the same weapon. It is also possible that they are using blank firing only mock ups that are not classified as firearms or shooting sequences involving real machineguns outside the US in countries that have more MG friendly (for big money corporations at least) laws. Money can, after all, be used to get around almost anything. this is correct...when we were filming Tropic Thunder, all of our guns on the set were either rubber fake ones with flashes added digitally, or they were real fully finctioning guns, but were changed to only be able to fire blanks. Even the RPGs used, actually never even fired anything. It was all digital for those shots and camera angles and cameras on wires. The blank firing machine guns were fun as hell. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<Clip> Mike I love reading this stuff , for some reason it's fascinating . It demonstrates how the whole process needs to be revamped , no matter what side of the issue you are on. The question being , of course, is who the revamp makes happier , the pro or anti gun forces . More fun is when original registration papers are screwed up. A rifle caliber MG is papered as a .25 auto. Do you leave it alone or try to correct the error, knowing full well that someone is going to think you're trying to radically alter a MG, which is a big no-no? (Dealt with that on one of my inventory guns.) Or how about a busy clerk during the '68 amnesty who registered a Grease Gun (a MG) as a SBR, and no one bothered to try to correct it until 2005? That was fun to fix. Or cases where someone who did a F1 build of a MG before 1986 engraved the barrel or the bipod instead of the receiver? Yup, they're out there. Registered receivers with permanently married serialized conversion pieces..? Mike Reminds me of the people who have the attitude of "Well if the ATF approved the form 1/4 then it must be right" especially as it pertains to trusts. Eventually someone will get a bug up their ass in ATF and disapprove a bunch of recent transfers. Disapproving of transfers is one thing. When a Trust or corporation is declared invalid, the NFA held by that entity becomes contraband. That's what concerns me- otherwise lawful NFA weapons meeting the smelters because some moron decided to save time and money by doing Quicken Willmaker over paying a few hundred more and having an attorney keep it 100% legal. Mike Yep...that's why I gladly paid the lawyer and ar15.com member Chris Bass $300 for my Trust. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<Clip> Mike I love reading this stuff , for some reason it's fascinating . It demonstrates how the whole process needs to be revamped , no matter what side of the issue you are on. The question being , of course, is who the revamp makes happier , the pro or anti gun forces . More fun is when original registration papers are screwed up. A rifle caliber MG is papered as a .25 auto. Do you leave it alone or try to correct the error, knowing full well that someone is going to think you're trying to radically alter a MG, which is a big no-no? (Dealt with that on one of my inventory guns.) Or how about a busy clerk during the '68 amnesty who registered a Grease Gun (a MG) as a SBR, and no one bothered to try to correct it until 2005? That was fun to fix. Or cases where someone who did a F1 build of a MG before 1986 engraved the barrel or the bipod instead of the receiver? Yup, they're out there. Registered receivers with permanently married serialized conversion pieces..? Mike Reminds me of the people who have the attitude of "Well if the ATF approved the form 1/4 then it must be right" especially as it pertains to trusts. Eventually someone will get a bug up their ass in ATF and disapprove a bunch of recent transfers. Disapproving of transfers is one thing. When a Trust or corporation is declared invalid, the NFA held by that entity becomes contraband. That's what concerns me- otherwise lawful NFA weapons meeting the smelters because some moron decided to save time and money by doing Quicken Willmaker over paying a few hundred more and having an attorney keep it 100% legal. Mike Yep...that's why I gladly paid the lawyer and ar15.com member Chris Bass $300 for my Trust. Only trouble is that he's only good for the states where he's admitted to practice. Always find a lawyer in YOUR state of residence to do the trust. Mike |
Armory Sponsor