Nfa form 4 changes

[hdiel]

So quick question 

In the instructions on the form 4, the government states that they need to be notified of any changes to the descriptionof the firearm,  if you look at what is defined, (by them) it includes make,  model,  serial number,  etc.  Why hasn't one used this to morph one item into a different item?

Thx

 

[The Lone Ranger]

People have done so.  You as a downstream registrant don't assign sn, model, or manufacturer so what's left is caliber and dimensions.  Some people have built new (unregistered but more "cool") firearms then changed the dimensions of a previously registered firearm, using the original mfg/model/sn.  Everyone can make a risk vs. reward assessment and act accordingly.  Longest sentence I am aware of is 121 months.

[mike todd]

 Changes will certainly open up a whole new can of worms to say the least only resulting in possible loss of your slot or worst. you have a very short time to respond to the directions in the letter you will get and 4 hours longer the computer kicks it out for ever more.  with  23 form 4's since all the new examiners and procedures went into effect which require an exact match to the first form placing it in the registry, I have learned to accept this as fact in every one of MY applications. They will compare your application to the very first forms, if its not an  exact match and you did not supply pictures that clearly show and a written explanation why and how it was changed, you will get a form letter with 2 choices. provide the information and pictures or cancel the form and request a refund for the fee's some were as trivial as showing 1/2" oal or brl length . another change VICKERS Mk1 to just VICKERS and vise versa I had to do both! for 2 diff guns due to the original's . the scariest one was an amnesty BELGIAN ARMY AB crested FALO.  when the owner filled out the amnesty papers, because it was not a belt fed,  in type he wrote "short rifle" ?? it was transferred to the auction house B-4 the new procedures were policy as a machine gun on their forms. when my forms came in they were in effect and they denied transfer because it was not listed as a "MACHINE GUN" on the original amnesty form. after more than 2 years of pleading and frustration, it came to me that prior to "gun control act 1970" there was no short barreled rifle category in the registry as currently described by law and intent was to benefit from the amnesty for the registrant. when I presented the auction house forms and "quasi legal" explanation of both era's and definitions and stressed the INTENT and purpose of the amnesty at the time in written form, they relented and transferred it as a machine gun along with a separate page explaining the  registry had been permanently changed to reflect it for the future.  rejection presented me with a $25k loss in value or a major suit at best and it was a welcome change to see that someone actually used common sense to make it work rather than a simple check mark and live with it.  3 cheers for that or more. I'm not quite sure what you meant by "morphing one type into another" but I believe IDEN GREENBURG is still sitting in a cage because an agent picked him up doing not  much more than you just did and built a successful conspiracy case. so I would suggest you not do much more of that any where, much less this site which I guarantee is active on some ones monitor as we calmly chat. hope all the rest may help SOMEONE cheers mike

Edited October 20, 2018 by mike todd
spelling fix

[The Lone Ranger]

https://www.justice.gov/usao-az/pr/gun-dealers-sentenced-prison-manufacture-possession-and-sale-illegal-machine-guns 

The appeals court posted the case on youtube for those who may be interested:

 

[hdiel]

I appreciate the input.  I'm fairly new to the nfa world.  I want to have fun and practice entirely within the law.  I have heard about that case but never knew specifics.  Thanks for your effort and input.

Thx 

[BrettBaker]

Someone else who is scared of going to a federal penitentiary? If so do not experiment on the cheap. 20 years ago or so, a guy here in Ohio wanted to add suppressors to the items he made. He made some prototypes, without registering them with ATF. There was an inspection, and then a trial. Several dealers had to go TESTIFY about him for the trial. I think he lost his licenses, not sure if he went to prison, or was just fined heavily.

[mike todd]

HEY GUY'S  after all your posts and some additional thought, in all fairness I don't think it was a question of "lets get together and change stuff" and piss on the rullings / regs or laws. quite possibly a legit question why isn't it done? after all at first glance seems reasonable as long as its not an outright put these numbers on this gun from that one. if indeed it was asked just to get a response, SHAME on him. but consider, when the attorney at the appeal asked if a 14" x 4" flat piece of steel can be ruled a receiver, " why not a 2" x 3" ?  like many of you, I know why but the question did make me think. BECAUSE that 14" x 4" piece ALONE can be added to a parts kit and make it run . the smaller one cant. and that was more than enough to support the allegation of guilt. I thought it very interesting when the prosecution presented "the government FIRST became AWARE and interested in this case after following a thread on a popular gun board concerning the legality of  doing this" can you say hello?

[The Lone Ranger]

Fair point - I should have added a rationale to the post rather than just the end result.  Simply put, you have to register everything that is built.  For all the smoke that was blown on the internet about this case it was simply selling unregistered MGs. Every lawfully possessed MG (in public use) is tethered to a registration.  When you have two MGs, there should be two registrations.  No provision for sharing or transferring a registration from one gun to another.  

I did not take the OP as a troll;  I was hesitant to reply briefly but then there are new people coming on board every day and it seemed like an honest question about a potentially hazardous topic.  There are loads of internet jackasses and I can feel myself slipping into the mold sometimes as I get older and crankier.  Thought I'd try being nice for a change.  

[mike todd]

RANGER ! I must agree being old and "cranky" do go hand in hand. we have been getting it shoved down our throat longer and its a normal reaction. for me the hardest part of these electronic exchanges is getting the proper emotion into the right words. so many phrases are capable of double meaning and there are a lot of people out there with defective sears that are looking for a place to cut loose. I don't know all the facts but basically  The Greenberg conspiracy case involved the act of cutting the serial number area OFF of Texas built Hatten M-10 subguns and creating a new sideplate for a browning. The new forms showed the proper overall length and Brl length of a 1919-A4 and the donor gun was destroyed. curiously they were not charged with the act, but CONSPIRING to do the act, after expressing the belief it was not lawfull. In my opinion ATF took the easy way out. attempting to set guidelines for rebuilds/ type/ etc has always been tough for them and they were saved by the bell with the conspiracy charges. Its my opinion that the 34 act gave them the authority to tax the transfer of a registered firearm, and before the 68 gun control act that's what they did. AFTER passage of the act you could be charged for having just a part NOT a functioning firearm, so again that's the limit of authority under the law. SIZE/ SHAPE /  COLOR/ CALIBER has no bearing. Prior to apprx 2000, all my forms had N/A except for MFG'r, TYPE and serial number. about that time they started kicking them back and refused to approve the transfer without something showing size. A PERFECT EXAMPLE of exceeding authority is, if you fail to register an HK pack that will fit a semi auto you can be charged. if it is in the system you cant. NOW they want to control HOW its altered and WHAT type of system its used in. the act only gives them the authority to TAX the transfer NOT WHAT COLOR YOU PAINT IT OR WHAT CALIBER IT IS. all that is only an aid to identification NOT REGULATORY UNDER LAW! if I choose to put it in an UNALTERED 249 a simple note in the file allows them to assume the controls granted under the law and should be good to go. like a child testing his parents they push and if it works, PUSH a little more. then you end up where we are.

[The Lone Ranger]

Mr. Todd,

There was at least one internet personality claiming to be a firearm law expert who stated no violations were committed by anyone, that there were only minor modifications made to existing firearms.  To the best of my knowledge, that claim was false and despite all the smoke, it was simply a fraud case.  I forget the duration of the trial - something like 2-3 weeks and the jury said "guilty" in roughly the time it took them to eat lunch.  There were several charges associated with that case, but I cannot list them per defendant.  A few to pick from: false statements/records, possession of unregistered, transfer in violation of the act come to mind quickly - and would not all necessarily apply to all involved parties.  I also won't claim to be wholly knowledgeable of every firearm involved, but for the ones I am familiar with the question of modification or redesign was not an issue.  The only "modification" made to any MG was removing the serial # (another charge to add to the previous list).  There were two separate MGs, each having mass and occupying space; one registered, one unregistered - the unregistered MG being transferred under the false pretense of being the registered MG.  The argument that the serial number is the MG while the other _ pounds of steel surrounding it is just decoration doesn't pass the proverbial "straight face test".  In the statutes, serial numbers are not registered, firearms are - the serial is only a means of identifying a unique item.  

I can cut a serial # off a $1 bill and integrate it into a $100 bill I made at home or rivet a Volkswagen VIN tag onto a "Audi" built in my garage.  The recipient of either would not be well served nor happy upon discovery of their origin.  

[mike todd]

RANGER, as stated by BORIS about the time the 34 laws went into effect " TALK GOOD" . I get a great deal of self satisfaction sharing my thoughts with others, no mater their stance simply because my mind and emotions are not good bed fellows. This case was over and sentencing done b-4 I actually heard about it. Of course I knew MR GREENBERG, but did not play in his sand box. WAY TOO MUCH EGO FOR MY TASTES. when I first heard about it, I was told he had only accepted an out of state transfer for someone and was charged because the prosecution felt his self described status as a "firearms  expert" was enough evidence to support his guilt. My opinion is based only on facts in public record. IN THE INTEREST OF DISCUSSING "serial numbers are not registered only firearms are" consider the following. I was fortunate to know the main agent assigned to the firearms division in the southwest region long before the change of law prior to GCA -68. he attended many after work "beer chats" , liked by all and through his actions and advice many transferable dewats survived in a restorable state. I can see examples at most all show's or shoots today. maybe some of you had the pleasure of meeting him? AL REED was his name. through him we could communicate with the agency and overall it worked for both sides.  agency policy forced a complete reversal in 1971 and we became the ENEMY and them the conquering force. it was so bad, the drive to transfer the ATF to the justice dept. became law and the "gun owners protection act" was created. the nature of the bureaucratic beast allows it to fall back on itself and refuse to communicate when there is a problem in the registry and NOBODY is held accountable for their actions or performance.  I am not a dealer and only hold a C+R. since the breakup of the EVERGREEN COLLECTION apprx 2012, I have applied for 29 transfers. less than 8 have required only the first forms, and I KNOW how to complete them properly. 2 were for the exact same model Breda-30 processed by the same examiner. both examples from the same original contract serial # 34 and serial # 37. same transferor both guns and filed at the same time. one approved first form in 13months. second required 5 different form 4 apps, 3 picture requests and description changes approval came 41 months later simply because a different supervisor stepped in when 2 example's so close were together. after direct phone conversation it could be months for a follow up call , then he would claim no knowledge of the situation and we had to start from scratch to proceed. needless to say this caused me tremendous anxiety. don't forget there were several others pending at the same time and no way to know if they suffered the same fate. JUST WAIT! and see what happens is not working for our side.       I HAD great plans / the funds and an obtainable goal for this collection but these issues have caused me to slow down considerably and after 1 or 2 more on the bucket list, I plan to stop completely.  The  WORST PART of these ordeals is the fix would be so simple.1st on the web site provide a specific email destination for specific issues to a person rather than a department. USE the current computerized phone directory to access A VIABLE communication channel directly to a RESPONSABLE supervisor specified in the channel. there are great people in the agency that are known for getting it done, and they have been a great help once they were known. most have been there so long that retirement is right around the corner. at this rate, I predict its only going to get worse.  (sigh) cheers  MIKE

[mike todd]

RANGER, I can only find records concerning the conspiracy charges. I knew there were others but was following IDENS trail.  you mentioned  something I had not heard before. can you provide any details about the "unregistered MG" ?  in the records I see a "HATTON  10" and by the description it seems a Browning 1919 type.  I was "told"  a HATTON MAC was the donor piece and it had been destroyed after the number was cut off.  I am fascinated by each dealer and MFG'Rs interpretation of the laws and regulations. when I am blessed with another rendition I love analyzing how the conclusion was reached. the one true thing I have learned about the ATF that CAN be counted on in EVERY QUERY, is they will only address the exact question exactly as it was asked and not volunteer  another possibility "if"  but they always end the letter or reply with the standard covenance describing firearm and the description of a "machine gun". of course in most cases the end result is a reversal and they get the blame NOT the person that asked and missed the boat.  I am praying I live to see the "reversal" concerning all these 14" smooth bore shotguns and "any other weapon status", the question was asked and got the only answer it could. but folks forget it is addressed directly by the law via another category and that question was NOT asked.   "DUAL ACTION" trigger mech's is another egg hatching I watch.  I round single pull the catch phrase. a most interesting dilemma ? once its pulled , it must be released  sooner or later. I wonder if they will apply NEWTONS LAW to reverse that situation. OH WHAT FUN !   thank you for your care full and precise explanation in your post.  cheers mike

[The Lone Ranger]

RE: "unregistered".... when a new MG was built to replace the M-10 type (or whatever lower $ firearm), those firearms were never registered as required (except if built by or on behalf of the USG with a variance to skip the F2 and F5).  When the new builds were transferred, they were done with no paper (no F2, so there could be no F3/F4 and if they had been registered they would have been post 86).  The cheaper item was transferred on paper but never went anywhere.  So - you had a MG that was built, never registered, and transferred without approval combined with an approved transfer application for a smashed/cut or otherwise never delivered MG.

 

You predate my experience.  I am older than ATF but not by much, having to rely on old hands relating experiences and reading documents from earlier time periods for historical context.  My favorites are the DEWAT rulings (55-590 comes to mind but I don't think it was the only one) and the Federal Firearms Act (1938) which seemed to be more focused on violent criminals than the GCA... but as with most things government, growth always comes I am not convinced more is better. Socialist/communist/giant government philosophy is based in part on the individual being too inept to conduct themselves.  My question has always been if that is the case, how does granting access to unlimited power and money make a portion of those inept people smart?  Not painting with a broad brush - I have found government employees to be a reflection of society in general - some saints, some demons, most in between the extremes - same to be said for firearms collectors and industry.  I have taken on the X-Files operating procedure: "trust no one". 

Edited November 14, 2018 by The Lone Ranger
spelling

[mike todd]

RANGER, I COMPLETLY understand the concept and term "UN registered" etc. but I don't understand how your first paragraph applies to this case at all. my question was, " what did they manufacture that was not registered". the way the case was explained to me,  they cut the serial no off of a MAC-10 that was in the registry, destroyed the balance of that MAC-10 receiver only, then inserted the small rectangle with serial no in an opening of various flat side plates. IE; FN-240, 1919 brng , 1910 maxim. I knew of the conspiracy convictions but now I am told of these "unregistered allegations" by some. again it hit me that it was a possible added violation concerning the above firearms. historically ATF has taken the stand that if it was not done according to law, "IT WAS NOT REGISTERED" creating a separate chargeable offense for the one action?  please enlighten me if possible, but go slow , I used a lot of aluminum cans in my day.  

MR REED was FANTASTIC! when we (INTERARMS) brought in all those mint WINCHESTER BAR'S from ENGLAND, the market was flooded with cheap NFA and there was a market for dewats. I had the  best ones laid out and was trying to figure out a gentile method that would pass muster and remain "restorable" or at least not be obvious. it was after hours and everybody else was in a circle drinking and jawing while I played at the bench. the example I had out appeared unfired but had that "expedient" metal replacement stock the tommy's came up with (yuck). AL came over and asked for a 1/8" 6013 rod. he clamped it to a piece of steel with vise grips, grounded it to the welder , then walked over and turned it on for about 10 sec's. doing a spot weld apprx1/4"max and CLEAN ! he said for me to use rubber fuel line to isolate the receiver and to use that method to "spot the bolt to the brl". it took me about an hour to come up with a method and when done he said it was good to go.  years later those same guns were made live using small carbide grinder at low speed on the spot. taking the gun completely apart, a hardened rod down the bore and 4 or 5 HARD whacks on the rod would break the bolt loose. in a few cases the spot had touched the receiver inside and was still obvious , but some not. several of the original barrels were cleaned up and went right back in. when I try to imagine a current agent attempting such an act today, I promptly just black out!

[The Lone Ranger]

You may need someone smarter than me to explain better - I'm not the sharpest pencil in the cup.

If it exists, it needs to be registered.

1 MG, you need one registration

2 MGs, you need two registrations and so on.

If you are at a point trying to claim an exemption to registering based on the angle that MG#1 isn't an MG any more and MG#2 is actually MG#1 because the serial # was cut off MG#1 and placed on MG#2, I am lost, cannot connect that to anything in the book, and can only see a potentially uncomfortable outcome.  I doubt it will work any better next time around but someone may well do it.  Money brings out the best in some of us.  I'm more bookworm than mechanic or engineer, so could be way off.

Edited November 14, 2018 by The Lone Ranger

[mike todd]

from your answers I get the feeling that you are possibly an attorney?  for some reason the QUESTION is twisted into some conceived request to explain NFA LAW and that is NOT the case.  I was told that registered gun was possessed by a licensed MFG'r.  they cut the serial number off it and destroyed the balance, THEN welded that "piece" to another "piece",  changed the oal and brl length to match on a new form. some where in the middle of this, ATF became aware of a discussion by the MFG'r  and started the investigation.  the completed registered gun was sold to an out of state individual and transfer was approved to the new dealer for him and when the new form 4 was filed, it got flagged and warrants issued. that was also the jist of the first defending attorney in the video that used the plastic for a demo  SO AGAIN I DONT SEE OR HEAR ANYTHING ABIOUT AN UNREGISTERED FIREARM except in your first paragraph. YOU STATED THERE WAS and your knowledge of that contention was what I asked you to share, not an explanation of law.   IN fact I KNOW of several other weapons that were created this way, several by one of our largest respected company's that supply's arms to our GOVT. and it involves weapons that currently sell for $50k plus. if they ever require pictures of the item on the form, and I believe they will, EVERY ONE WILL BE SIEZED INSTANTLY  

[The Lone Ranger]

Once the insults begin, it's time for me to bow out.  You didn't like my answer - neither did I.  Most of us would like a never ending supply of new transferrable MGs but that isn't reality.  "Replacement" MGs need to be registered.  If you want to pretend you are Hatton Industries and it's 1985 while you are building a paperless 240 today or are confident in your ability to convince a jury a sliver of metal with a removed serial # is a machinegun while the 24 pound piece of metal next to it that looks and acts like a machinegun is just cosmetics and you are not really building anything, knock yourself out - risk vs reward.  For those interested, here is the statute and referenced regulation in its entirety.  Each reader can decide if I am "twisting" anything.  I'm too lazy to copy the statutes about removing serial numbers. 18 USC 922(k) and 26 USC 5861(g)

§5841. Registration of firearms

(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.

(d) Firearms registered on effective date of this Act

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.

 

§ 479.103 Registration of firearms manufactured.

Each manufacturer qualified under this part shall file with the Director an accurate notice on Form 2 (Firearms), Notice of Firearms Manufactured or Imported, executed under the penalties of perjury, to show his manufacture of firearms. The notice shall set forth the name and address of the manufacturer, identify his special (occupational) tax stamp and Federal firearms license, and show the date of manufacture, the type, model, length of barrel, overall length, caliber, gauge or size, serial numbers, and other marks of identification of the firearms he manufactures, and the place where the manufactured firearms will be kept. All firearms manufactured by him during a single day shall be included on one notice, Form 2 (Firearms), filed by the manufacturer no later than the close of the next business day. The manufacturer shall prepare the notice, Form 2 (Firearms), in duplicate, file the original notice as prescribed herein and keep the copy with the records required by subpart I of this part at the premises covered by his special (occupational) tax stamp. Receipt of the notice, Form 2 (Firearms), by the Director shall effectuate the registration of the firearms listed on that notice. The requirements of this part relating to the transfer of a firearm are applicable to transfers by qualified manufacturers.

 

 

[mike todd]

RANGER, thank you for taking the time to "rehash" known and fully understood statutes and firearms law. "SOME" members may have needed that , myself when a question of law that effects anything I may need clarified, the question will be answered by a professional in that field. YOU were asked a DIRECT question about a statement you made and at no time did I express support, agreement or condone any action by others. you remarked about "insults" in your last post and none were intended . your first response to my question is exactly like the last and for some reason skips the actual question asked . just for unity lets consider the question answered and leave it at that.

[tcgoll]

I was aquainted with the Mr Clark they refered to in the case. Over the 40 plus years i have been in the NFA cirle i have run into a number of eccentric people but he was probably one of the oddest i have ever met.  I would have not taken his word for anything he said. The last time i saw him was just before this all happened. I saw him at SAR and he said i havent seen you in a few years which was true. I coild tell he was somewht "impaired" but didnt say anything to him. The next day i saw him again and he said the same i haven't seen you in years. I wouldnt let him fix my bicycle much less take his advise on NFA regulations.