The Lone Ranger

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Country

    United States

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About The Lone Ranger

  • Rank
    Active Duty
  1. Pending FBI Background Check

    This is one of the few times when the old "background check delay" story can be true. FBI researches checks as a courtesy to ATF but is under no obligation to do so. Conversely, FBI is mandated by law and regulation to research and respond to checks initiated by dealers. When a panic buy episode occurs (for example if a president were to suggest confiscation first, due process later or the largest gun lobby org in the country starts proposing bans via regulation that might spark a rush) the FBI cannot keep up with FFL generated checks and the NFA checks get put on the back burner. Roughly 70-75% of NFA checks need no research and are automatically proceeded by a computer and thus not an issue to those applicants. Note how that article about Trump being bad/stupid for wanting to add examiners to NFA fails to mention the # of examiners in NFA tripled during the BHO administration. Probably an honest oversight...
  2. I can at least respect the "repeal the second amendment" crowd for adhering to the rules. Meanwhile, back at the ranch the ban via regulation tactic is moving ahead. Normal time frame for a regulation change is 7 years. Maybe this one will go a tiny bit quicker?
  3. Just to place things in context which is rarely done for whatever reason(s) - Reagan signed at the strong urging of the gun lobby, specifically NRA & GOA (and maybe some other smaller units I'm missing) which had determined that a small inconvenience of a firearm ban was not going to derail seven years of work on the FOPA. Had he vetoed it, he would be labeled anti-gun then and now. The NRA is now advocating for ATF to get the authority to ban via regulation rather than requiring it to get through congress. I have written a nice letter asking for the thought process and anticipated benefits to gun owners both present and future if this occurs. Hopefully it will rationalize what appears irrational unless viewed through the prism of fundraising potential (the gun lobby is a business first and foremost). For those who have not experienced the much discussed "roundtable":
  4. BATFE, ..stupid is being kind

    If Ruger did not mark "F" on the firearm, then AC556 is the model. If the firearm is marked AC556F then that is the correct model. The box is irrelevant for anything but a storage and shipping container. ATF's failure was not pushing it back on the first modifier. Any firearm with one barrel does not have three calibers - just accurately describe it at the time of application. Firearms registered in 57 calibers never should not have been allowed to develop but it was and now applicants are confused about one barrel = one caliber; the simple has become complex through a team effort of public and government. Another common scenario is "MP-5 ABCD5". If the firearm is marked "MP-5" by the manufacturer, it's an MP-5 and that's it regardless of what trigger or stock is attached at any given moment. If it's marked MP-5NA3 then that's what it is for its lifetime despite the S-E-F trigger and fixed stock attached afterward. I used to be a DMV employee; laws are something entirely different from lifetime history of the product. I could tell you how much a <8,000 through 80,000 plate cost, how long you had to obtain title/registration/DL after moving in state, how to pay sales tax on a car purchased from a non-dealer, catch an ID thief, even one or two odometer cheats; that's what I needed to get through the day without giving taxpayers a runaround and catch the occasional crook but I couldn't tell you the manufacturing process of every car ever built or imported into the US - not even close and did not need to. The laws applied to every car regardless of the year, engine size, or model. P.S. Good luck getting the human gun encyclopedias to apply for examiner jobs (or the internet cadre that claim they could process an application .3 seconds). It's been tried - until impressment becomes legal, it probably won't happen.
  5. BATFE, ..stupid is being kind

    Please accept my apology and consider the offer of assistance rescinded - I had no intention of winding you or anyone else up, just to point out something that frequently occurs so you might consider the possibility that you may actually be in a contest with the original registrant rather than the research contractor who sent your form back and if so, adjust tactics accordingly. I detest the inefficiency and corruption in government almost as much as you - maybe even as much - but expecting a form reviewer to be intimately versed in the manufacture of the Puteaux and knowing there is no way anyone could ever change a caliber on one so as to spot the original registrant as incompetent and you as competent when most "gun people" could not recognize one by sight or name is not realistic. The overwhelming majority of birth certificates in the NFRTR were submitted by non-government entities; collectors/shooters, manufacturers, and importers who occasionally did not worry about descriptive data that much and when in doubt resorted to kentucky windage on origin, dimensions, models, and calibers. It's not pleasant but it's reality.
  6. BATFE, ..stupid is being kind

    While your proposed scenario is entirely possible, the *usual* cause for this is some other dumbass outside the government injected the wrong data into the sewage pipe decades ago and the person who is looking at an application now has never seen a Puteaux and has no idea what caliber they were manufactured in or if anyone did or could have changed it over the years. Now your application differs from the one the first applicant claimed was correct and the bureaucrat has no way to know who is competent, correct, or not. My anecdotal experience has been there is far more bad data provided by applicants than is applied by the bureaucracy (which is logical given that all original specs are provided from the public/industry). P.S. If you happen to be the original registrant and have your F-1/F-2/F-6/4467 showing it as 25mm, sending a copy in should hopefully cure it if it was a ATTU/ATF error. If you really did get an employee who is projecting the model into the caliber.... get some ibuprofen and send me a PM.
  7. MG C&R Transfer - Individual to C&R Collector

    I'm old and lazy - should have been more specific - or the OP can check out the instructions instead of paying attention to us. If the 03 FFL is held by a legal entity, the 5330.20 goes with and covers the same ground. If a natural person holds the license just fill it out. Shame on ATF - should have used "natural person" rather than "individual" to be more consistent with statutory verbiage. If I'm missing something interesting, help a brother out. If the transferee is an individual, the entire Form 4 shall be completed except for items 18 and 19. In addition, the transferee must include his or her fngerprints on FBI Form FD-258 and his or her photos (see instruction 2g). If the transferee is other than an individual, e.g., a trust or legal entity such as a corporation, the transferee shall not complete items 14, 15,16, and 17. All other items must be completed including the signing of the Transferee Certifcation statement by the transferee. Photographs and Fingerprints. An individual transferee, except if licensed as a manufacturer, importer, or dealer under the GCA, must (1) attach to item 15 of the ATF Form 4, a 2 inch x 2 inch photograph of the frontal view of the transferee taken within 1 year prior to the date of the application and (2) submit two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card with blue lines) with the application. The fngerprints must be clear for accurate classifcation and taken by someone properly equipped to take them.
  8. MG C&R Transfer - Individual to C&R Collector

    Fill it all out and include the print/pics which are not collected on a 03 (collector) FFL so no exemption on the F4. The exemption is limited to manufacturer, dealer, importer.
  9. Non-dealer to Dealer question

    No - see form instructions for a second source.
  10. Is there a change in USPS policy on shipping NFA?

    Postal workers are like bureaucrats and dealers. Some on their game, others not so much. With any luck the link will take you to firearm mailing info.
  11. Registered M16 auto sear

    Correct - you would have 1) a registered unregulated item combined with 2) an unregistered regulated item (assuming the scenario is as it seems in this post).
  12. A public service announcement for those of you that received a letter recently regarding use of NICS for background checks on silencers: The reason for this is with 41F came a new interpretation/application of 18 USC 922(t)(3)(B) - see above mentioned form instructions - now if a transferee had no check as part of the application process (by ATF) the dealer does one at time of delivery. Since PA law prohibits use of PICS for anything other than a firearm transfer and does not include a silencer in their definition of a firearm, NICS is the only route (unless/until PA changes the definition). 1. Nothing about the scope of your license changed - what you could buy/sell before, you can buy/sell now. 2. This does not mean you can engage in the business of selling silencers and be exempt from paying SOT. 3. Read the form 4473 item 20 and instructions. If you are still perplexed, call ATF in Pennsylvania - do not call the FBI - it's not their form. The phone number in the letter is for registering to use NICS which is run by the FBI - ATF publishes the forms and Gun Control Act regulations. 4. E-Check is good if you have internet. You can print or save your work for self-audits and it can be quicker at peak times.
  13. Bit of an Introduction

    ATF has 60 days to act on your (properly completed) application and that is usually achieved. A good $30 to spend if you don't mind some fairly simple record keeping.
  14. Re-manufactured tranny MGs?

    Making & manufacturing are the same activity, only distinction is whether the one doing it pays SOT. See definition of "make" in 479.11. There is no process in law or regulation for replacing anything paperless. Build it = register it unless you have a variance and in this scenario that is not a realistic possibility.
  15. Page 12