flgunguy Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 I am not sure if I am allowed to post links to gunbroker here, but there is a seller who appears to have purchased a dealer sample MP5 from this forum and reposted it as transferable. If you search "Factory HK MP5 A3 Transferable SMG Burst Pack Double Push Pin MP5A3 MG F3" you can find the listing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy H Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 2 minutes ago, flgunguy said: I am not sure if I am allowed to post links to gunbroker here, but there is a seller who appears to have purchased a dealer sample MP5 from this forum and reposted it as transferable. If you search "Factory HK MP5 A3 Transferable SMG Burst Pack Double Push Pin MP5A3 MG F3" you can find the listing. Links to live auctions are not allowed here at Sturm …. Ended/sold links are ok ….. interested persons can search Gunbroker to find above weapon …… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT Fish Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 TPI is a member here and sells a lot on Sturm. I think we had a discussion about this gun or a similar one not long ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgunguy Posted March 7 Author Report Share Posted March 7 Someone is really going to get screwed on this. Date code obviously shows 1984 production. Not possible for that to be a factory transferable, it has to be pre-1968. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeRanger Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 So contact the GB admins. They require that all listings conform to Federal laws. If the date code shows it to be 1984 this listing does not conform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT Fish Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Read this thread to get caught up on the debate on the status of this gun(pr one like it). Most of us agree that it's a pre-sample. But some disagree Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT Fish Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 @damcv62 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgunguy Posted March 7 Author Report Share Posted March 7 ATF has been known to make these labeling mistakes in between some transfers, forgetting to put the sales sample restriction. They fix it later at a huge cost to the one holding the bag at the end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeRanger Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 56 minutes ago, flgunguy said: ATF has been known to make these labeling mistakes in between some transfers, forgetting to put the sales sample restriction. They fix it later at a huge cost to the one holding the bag at the end. BTDT. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got Uzi Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 Everyone is an internet expert....but the receiver doesn't lie.....1984 and it was made in Germany.....so it was imported in 1984 or 1985.....which means its a PRE SAMPLE.....arguement could be made that it could be a Post Sample depending on when it was imported. IIRC this gun and another one were for sale on here and they were listed as Pre Sample. I remember the SO inventory number marked on the rail lug. I don't understand why people want to play fast and loose with stuff like this. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattnh Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 (edited) Was the gun imported by Feds? If so, I’m not sure the same rules apply…. Is there an import mark? fwiw, the old thread noted above also alludes to to this imported by feds situation. My understanding is only guns directly imported by a federal agency and subsequently transferred to public would be treated this way. Anything imported via a type8 FFL (importer) would be subject to normal rules (even if imported for a fed agency) There was another batch of fed agency imported Mp5s auctioned a couple years back as transferable with aft blessing apparently. Nothing says they won’t change their mind in the future, though… Edited March 7 by mattnh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumpy Posted March 7 Report Share Posted March 7 So there used to be a Glock made in 380 that couldn’t be imported for civilian’s but if imported by police department then sold to civilians it was okay?(or guys assumed it was okay?) (not sure) I wonder if the same rule for this applied? This would of been like 2010/2012? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firelizzard Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 I am confused here, everyone keeps talking about the year 1984 as the manufacture date. Isn't anything made or registered on or before May 19th 1986 able to be considered Transferable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattnh Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Firelizzard said: I am confused here, everyone keeps talking about the year 1984 as the manufacture date. Isn't anything made or registered on or before May 19th 1986 able to be considered Transferable? A MG imported post 1968 GCA is a dealer sample (what are now called pre86 dealer samples) as opposed to post-86 dealer samples. Most transferables were either imported pre-1968, manufactured in the US pre-86, are legal mil bringbacks, or amnesty registered (possibly imported illegally). There appear to be a few other ways to get into the registry as a transferable, but are very uncommon. Edited March 8 by mattnh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firelizzard Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 Ok, thank you for the clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got Uzi Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 Also let’s face it…at the price it’s posted at….it won’t be selling anytime soon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coward Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 Does anyone know what happened with those LE surplus ones that went for cheap on that government auction site? They were advertised as fully transferable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Posted March 8 Report Share Posted March 8 He must have changed his listing and removed the pics showing the date code, because I don't see any showing it. This sale, if someone buys it, looks like a future lawsuit. Maybe the seller is hoping the buyer won't have the $$ to hire a lawyer and take this to court. Or maybe he'll go out of business directly after the check clears the bank and avoid prosecution. Whatever the case is, believing this to be a "loophole" gun would be a risky gamble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damcv62 Posted March 9 Report Share Posted March 9 On 3/7/2024 at 3:31 PM, flgunguy said: Someone is really going to get screwed on this. Date code obviously shows 1984 production. Not possible for that to be a factory transferable, it has to be pre-1968. And you’d be wrong. Gun has transferred via a tax paid from 4. Please don’t post negatively about my gun that you don’t understand. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damcv62 Posted March 9 Report Share Posted March 9 On 3/7/2024 at 5:44 PM, Got Uzi said: Everyone is an internet expert....but the receiver doesn't lie.....1984 and it was made in Germany.....so it was imported in 1984 or 1985.....which means its a PRE SAMPLE.....arguement could be made that it could be a Post Sample depending on when it was imported. IIRC this gun and another one were for sale on here and they were listed as Pre Sample. I remember the SO inventory number marked on the rail lug. I don't understand why people want to play fast and loose with stuff like this. Not correct. Again, if you don’t know the ATF rules please do your research. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damcv62 Posted March 9 Report Share Posted March 9 On 3/7/2024 at 5:54 PM, mattnh said: Was the gun imported by Feds? If so, I’m not sure the same rules apply…. Is there an import mark? fwiw, the old thread noted above also alludes to to this imported by feds situation. My understanding is only guns directly imported by a federal agency and subsequently transferred to public would be treated this way. Anything imported via a type8 FFL (importer) would be subject to normal rules (even if imported for a fed agency) There was another batch of fed agency imported Mp5s auctioned a couple years back as transferable with aft blessing apparently. Nothing says they won’t change their mind in the future, though… Correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damcv62 Posted March 9 Report Share Posted March 9 23 hours ago, Chef said: He must have changed his listing and removed the pics showing the date code, because I don't see any showing it. This sale, if someone buys it, looks like a future lawsuit. Maybe the seller is hoping the buyer won't have the $$ to hire a lawyer and take this to court. Or maybe he'll go out of business directly after the check clears the bank and avoid prosecution. Whatever the case is, believing this to be a "loophole" gun would be a risky gamble. I’m not going any where. I’ve got over 15 years buying and selling machine guns, have over 400 transferables in my inventory, and am pretty well known in the industry. But thanks for casting doubt on my company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got Uzi Posted March 9 Report Share Posted March 9 I know the rules and was talking to one of our mutual friends yesterday. He explained some of the process that was used by ATF. TBH that whole process terrifies me as to how ATF is changing things with no documentation from ATF to back it up, when does the buck stop and the Form 4 get rejected and someone is holding the bag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrh Posted March 9 Report Share Posted March 9 13 hours ago, damcv62 said: And you’d be wrong. Gun has transferred via a tax paid from 4. Please don’t post negatively about my gun that you don’t understand. I am not commenting on your gun, but will comment on your statement. Just because it transferred on a Form 4 doesn't make an item "transferrable". I know of a gun that transferred twice and the person had copies of the paperwork. When they decided to sell (within the last 2 years), ATF confiscated it as a Post Sample. ATF admitted their mistake but the current administration policy is to give no grace on their mistakes as they have in the past. That was per the ATF attorney in Washington. They would not even allow the parts to be removed. And it was an expensive gun, not what your's is listed for but $30K+. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
United Surplus Arms Posted March 10 Report Share Posted March 10 1 hour ago, jrh said: Just because it transferred on a Form 4 doesn't make an item "transferrable". I know of a gun that transferred twice and the person had copies of the paperwork. When they decided to sell (within the last 2 years), ATF confiscated it as a Post Sample. ATF admitted their mistake but the current administration policy is to give no grace on their mistakes as they have in the past. That was per the ATF attorney in Washington. They would not even allow the parts to be removed. And it was an expensive gun, not what your's is listed for but $30K+. this right here is the crux of the matter (and the risk) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoshNC Posted March 10 Report Share Posted March 10 Are people suggesting that a post-68, pre-86 import MG can be transferable if it was imported for a government agency? This is not something I’m familiar with and I’ve been into MGs for over 20 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattnh Posted March 10 Report Share Posted March 10 (edited) 2 hours ago, JoshNC said: Are people suggesting that a post-68, pre-86 import MG can be transferable if it was imported for a government agency? This is not something I’m familiar with and I’ve been into MGs for over 20 years. Not imported FOR a fed agency instead imported DIRECTLY BY a fed agency Agree, It is an oddball case & that there is always risk that ATF could change their mind on the classification Edited March 10 by mattnh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bwana Posted March 10 Report Share Posted March 10 If this is a matter of understanding the rules, could someone be kind enough to post a link so that we can all be educated? Like others, I've been an SOT for a couple decades + and clearly am not familiar with this policy. Just because something transfers on a form 4 means absolutely nothing later if ATF catches a past mistake. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HHollow Posted March 11 Report Share Posted March 11 I have seen a post ‘68 import with a US manufacture date of 1985. So there is the possibility of an “immaculate reman”. (Just now invented the term.) Actually saw one where the re-manufacturer claimed to have filled in the AR10 sear hole and then redrilled it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron in Mohnton Pa Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 (edited) Not to do with this specific gun in question in this thread. I don’t want to conflate the two issues … so this is not a shot at Donald or his MP5 for sale .. .... But here is an example of a "Transferable" Gun that was transferred multiple times before the owner got a letter notifying him that his transferable was in fact a dealer sample. He fought for years against the ATF regarding this classification change. In the end, he passed away and the gun was cut up. This is Just an example of how the ATF can change their minds on things… we have all seen this to both ways, Transferables become dealer samples and sometimes dealer samples become transferable ... I am also talking with another long time dealer right now who has a Maxim 08 that was registered in 1964. He also got a letter stating it is now classified as a dealer sample.... No explanation, No recourse... which makes no sense. Aaron - Mohnton, PA Edited April 27 by Aaron in Mohnton Pa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got Uzi Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 I'll take "what was a Stemple M60" being the reason for that letter as I had the displeasure of cutting up an M60 that had an nearly identical letter sent to the owner years after it transferred to him on a Form 4. That is exactly what I see happening with these MP5's and other items they seem to be doing this stunt with, transfer a few times and then all of a sudden its pre sample again.....the one left holding the bag is the one who gets screwed on several thousand dollars, while the ATF agent who took it on his or herself to do this, has nothing done to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riflejunky Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 I bought a Bren gun from a local auction house that had been transferred and marketed as a transferable gun only to have the Eform to me come back as a post sample. I simply told them there was no way for me to obtain a law letter and I wanted a refund. They didn't really have any option except to return my payment. I only say this to point out that paperwork mistakes definitely happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeRanger Posted April 24 Report Share Posted April 24 7 hours ago, Aaron in Mohnton Pa said: Not to do with this specific gun in question in this thread..... But here is an example of a "Transferable" Gun that was transferred multiple times before the owner got a letter notifying him that his transferable was in fact a dealer sample. He fought for years against the ATF regarding this classification change. In the end, he passed away and the gun was cut up. Just an example of how the ATF can change their minds on things.... I am also talking with another long time dealer right now who has a Maxim 08 that was registered in 1964. He also got a letter stating it is now classified as a dealer sample.... No explanation, No recourse... Aaron - Mohnton, PA I've got the exact same letter and one small chunk of the receiver with the S/N and Stemple's info on it. The rest of my pig went to the "great oxy-acetylene barbecue in the sky" virtue of Got Uzi. I broke more or less even on the gun if I ignore 30+ years of price increases 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGG Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 (edited) This is my understanding of pre-86 MP5's imported BY law enforcement agencies (i.e. not imported by ACME Guns and resold to LE): a) non-restricted (Registry- “IMPORTED NFA FIREARM” as the manufacturer; in possession of law enforcement for a significant period of time are eligible to have restrictions removed and become “transferable”; @ 4,000 to be removed) Tony Edited April 26 by AGG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron in Mohnton Pa Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 (edited) This comment below is from Bob Naess: "Does a fed agency not use a licensed importer for obtaining an MG and receive transfer of it on a form 5? MGs are imported with usual ATF import authority to a licensed importer regardless of end user, No? You are suggesting that a federal agency importing an MG receives it on a form 5 that is NOT stamped with import compliance restrictions for the agency because it is "govt."? If there is no stamped compliance for post-sample on the F5 and when it is transferred from the agency it transfers out on an F5 which "launders" it and then, because the paperwork is not stamped for post-May compliance possession, it appears in subsequent transfers as transferable.....? Have you seen an approved transfer to a fed agency? They should be stamped for post-May compliance. They are post-May imports! ATF screwup.....or?" Edited April 26 by Aaron in Mohnton Pa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsonlmg41 Posted April 26 Report Share Posted April 26 11 hours ago, Aaron in Mohnton Pa said: This comment below is from Bob Naess: "Does a fed agency not use a licensed importer for obtaining an MG and receive transfer of it on a form 5? MGs are imported with usual ATF import authority to a licensed importer regardless of end user, No? You are suggesting that a federal agency importing an MG receives it on a form 5 that is NOT stamped with import compliance restrictions for the agency because it is "govt."? If there is no stamped compliance for post-sample on the F5 and when it is transferred from the agency it transfers out on an F5 which "launders" it and then, because the paperwork is not stamped for post-May compliance possession, it appears in subsequent transfers as transferable.....? Have you seen an approved transfer to a fed agency? They should be stamped for post-May compliance. They are post-May imports! ATF screwup.....or?" No, he's confused as to the process on how some of these were acquired. Lacks the background info. Many instances in this thread conflating other guns into the discussion confusing the issue. The reality is that it's very possible the gun is currently transferable, whether some people believe that or not, it's a fact. As to what the long term future holds for these specific guns, it's difficult to say? A Maxim 08 that was registered in 64 is normally a C+R gun. There exists the possibility that transfers along the way got missed and then that would no longer be the case, even though there is paperwork from 64. Often a guy dies, the estate window closes, and the registration dies with him, and some guns have gotten "re-registered", but that has nothing to do with the original registration. If that's not the case, it's just an error that can be fixed, and I would not panic if you have a constant chain of paperwork. I have been down this road, it's not that big of a deal, just a lot of time educating new examiners that turn over quickly. I recently spent 3 months convincing an examiner and her supervisor that yes, you can approve a transfer of a C+R gun to a C+R licensee. They apparently did not have that level of training? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damcv62 Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 On 4/24/2024 at 5:11 PM, Got Uzi said: I'll take "what was a Stemple M60" being the reason for that letter as I had the displeasure of cutting up an M60 that had an nearly identical letter sent to the owner years after it transferred to him on a Form 4. That is exactly what I see happening with these MP5's and other items they seem to be doing this stunt with, transfer a few times and then all of a sudden its pre sample again.....the one left holding the bag is the one who gets screwed on several thousand dollars, while the ATF agent who took it on his or herself to do this, has nothing done to them. And the ATF could decide they are all post samples with the stroke of a pen. So what’s your point? It’s the risk we all take playing in this world. I get people having questions and opinions about what the ATF is doing, I don’t take kindly to people saying I’m in the wrong here. The gun is a legal fully transferable machine gun. Past that it’s speculation. I’m not trying to hide anything with this item, and if for some reason it came back as pre may I’d give them a full refund. Again, I deal in reality and now. What ifs don’t do me any good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got Uzi Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 I know you would give a full refund if that happened, but one or two transfers later and someone won’t be so generous and someone will get screwed. Not saying you are wrong or not above board at all, I’m just saying there is nothing from atf other than someone waved a magic wand and suddenly a pre sample became transferable. I question what is “a significant amount of time” and I’d want it all in writing, tho we know that doesn’t always hold up either. That’s my point, there is a lack of information on this and there are more questions than answers, not pointing a finger at you or saying you are doing something shady, it’s the point of trying to get the context of what the new “rule” or rather “opinion” of someone that made them change a guns status. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron in Mohnton Pa Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 (edited) FWIW… I spent the day today with a long time dealer , whom has been dealing in machine guns for 45 years ….He has an Mp5SD that was a pre-may and is now listed as transferable … He spoke directly with the ATF regarding this and was told by them that their are approximately 3,000 dealer samples from back in the day that are incorrectly marked restricted … and they are in the process of trying to correct it … Still, would be nice if they would publish this somewhere and give to people in writing Edited April 27 by Aaron in Mohnton Pa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flgunguy Posted April 27 Author Report Share Posted April 27 So 3000 of the 17000 premays will be reclassified? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KickStand Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 (edited) One day, they’ll likely just change their minds again. Let’s be honest, they have a history of doing this and it’s a problem. Sad but probably true. Edited April 27 by KickStand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aaron in Mohnton Pa Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 (edited) @flgunguy of course this should not be taken as fact being it was not given in writing and was a conversation between the ATF at SAR and a long time dealer …. But that is what they told him. He was specifically inquiring about a MP5sd in his inventory which is showing as transferable now. This was back in December that he spoke with them….. and no reasoning was given other than that they are trying to correct errors… no explanation how the approximately 3,000 number came to be … Edited April 27 by Aaron in Mohnton Pa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsonlmg41 Posted April 27 Report Share Posted April 27 3 hours ago, Aaron in Mohnton Pa said: FWIW… I spent the day today with a long time dealer , whom has been dealing in machine guns for 45 years ….He has an Mp5SD that was a pre-may and is now listed as transferable … He spoke directly with the ATF regarding this and was told by them that their are approximately 3,000 dealer samples from back in the day that are incorrectly marked restricted … and they are in the process of trying to correct it … Still, would be nice if they would publish this somewhere and give to people in writing I had the same discussion a couple months ago, with likely the same guy. Not nitpicking, but I doubt they said "incorrectly marked" even though it's implied. All that really came out of it was that those guns are now transferable. AFAIK, like everyone else, no one has seen it in writing, nor did anyone have an answer as to why it's happening now, and by the letter of the rules today, those are still pre-may samples. Did they lose a lawsuit? Did a dept. see $signs with an inventory they are ready to move out and complained? Or? After being told there are no errors in the registry in numerous court documents, seems kind of interesting there may be 3-4000 errors? LOL Until it's published or the info on why it happened becomes public I'd err on the side of caution. If published, you'd be grandfathered regardless of what happens in the future. Like everyone else here, when something good for us happens, there is ample reason for doubt until an explanation is given or rule published.....so far, crickets. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fifthmdec Posted Tuesday at 10:33 PM Report Share Posted Tuesday at 10:33 PM (edited) On 4/27/2024 at 4:29 PM, johnsonlmg41 said: I had the same discussion a couple months ago, with likely the same guy. Not nitpicking, but I doubt they said "incorrectly marked" even though it's implied. All that really came out of it was that those guns are now transferable. AFAIK, like everyone else, no one has seen it in writing, nor did anyone have an answer as to why it's happening now, and by the letter of the rules today, those are still pre-may samples. Did they lose a lawsuit? Did a dept. see $signs with an inventory they are ready to move out and complained? Or? After being told there are no errors in the registry in numerous court documents, seems kind of interesting there may be 3-4000 errors? LOL Until it's published or the info on why it happened becomes public I'd err on the side of caution. If published, you'd be grandfathered regardless of what happens in the future. Like everyone else here, when something good for us happens, there is ample reason for doubt until an explanation is given or rule published.....so far, crickets. It seems to have been classified as official by the ATF.. There are currently, approximately 4,000 reclassified pre May samples that were imported after 1968 and before the Hughes amendment took effect in 1986. That were directly imported directly to police departments, that are now transferable. NFATCA was the driving force behind the change. The group that worked with the NFA to drop the CLEO sign off… Edited Tuesday at 10:37 PM by fifthmdec Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okrana Posted Tuesday at 11:27 PM Report Share Posted Tuesday at 11:27 PM Not aware PDs could import machine guns. Thought they had to go thru a dealer. Okrana 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syncytium1 Posted Tuesday at 11:37 PM Report Share Posted Tuesday at 11:37 PM I'm wondering how I would go about seeing if any of my pre-86 DSs are subject to this change. I know a couple of mine came out of police departments, but I don't know how they were imported. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bwana Posted Wednesday at 01:50 AM Report Share Posted Wednesday at 01:50 AM Agree - would be nice to see how to tell what is, or is not, in that category. I just logged on to eforms and did a dummy run making a Form 4. I have no color codes on my inventory when I pick from the list to "add firearm". I try a pre-sample Uzi (importer listed as IMI) and it makes a pop-up screen that says "no dealer or post samples" (remember, this is a form 4). Darn. Ok, I try a sample MP40 and bingo, it gets added to the form 4. Ok, I delete that one and try a sample MG34. Yay! It gets added to the form 4. Both are listed as "Imported NFA Firearm" (vs importer name, or Mauser or whatever else). Interesting, since paperwork on all 3 is stamped with "Limited for use...". Makes me want to transfer them to myself (vs current FFL Corp). Would be nice, but not holding my breath. We'll see. Was actually going to list them, but think that I'll hold off for a bit longer... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Syncytium1 Posted Wednesday at 11:41 AM Report Share Posted Wednesday at 11:41 AM I tried the same thing with my eform inventory. Out of 10 presamples, 7 let me make a form 4. Either I got really lucky, or that way might not be entirely foolproof. Time will tell, I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saab95v6 Posted Wednesday at 12:00 PM Report Share Posted Wednesday at 12:00 PM Been a dealer for 30 + years, always seen scale tilting the other way , this time its in our favor, so just enjoy the ride. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill in Bama Posted Wednesday at 02:52 PM Report Share Posted Wednesday at 02:52 PM I tried both my MP5's and no go on either one, but my HK33 pre-sample is now OK when I put it into a Form 4 application. So there is that. I'm with Bwana, might transfer them to myself and pay the tax stamp just to have a legal paper trail. They can only go one way in price. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark2 Posted Thursday at 03:25 AM Report Share Posted Thursday at 03:25 AM Lots of guys eating crow today on this one 1️⃣ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damcv62 Posted Thursday at 04:32 AM Report Share Posted Thursday at 04:32 AM On 3/8/2024 at 11:25 AM, Got Uzi said: Also let’s face it…at the price it’s posted at….it won’t be selling anytime soon @Got Uzi This post aged fantastically in the last two months. All 3 of morphys guns went for more than my asking. Funny, almost like I know what I’m doing. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bwana Posted Thursday at 05:06 AM Report Share Posted Thursday at 05:06 AM That's a pretty smug attitude. We asked for more information but you withheld / did not share any additional info. It would've been nice for all if you had openly shared what you knew besides the "I know stuff and you don't" position that seems to have been taken. Good for you to be "in the know". I'm curious where you got the early knowledge of this info? What else is known but not openly shared at this time? All info would be greatly appreciated. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Got Uzi Posted Thursday at 08:41 AM Report Share Posted Thursday at 08:41 AM Funny how certain people knew it was going to happen and were told not to say anything about it. Also funny how the talking heads on YouTube know all the details but yet we still have no official documentation from ATF on this and to the fact that ATF hasn’t even given their own people guidance and information on it. Sure glad you made bank on these and everyone else who will be selling the new found “transferable” guns they have. Sure as hell would have been nice knowing this was coming before I’d sold some of the pre samples I had sold, as two of the ones I sold earlier this year popped as “transferable” so I literally lost out on $20k-$30k in value because it was all a big secret. Equally as funny-for the NFATCA being involved in this great “victory” they haven’t put anything on their website yet. The lack of information and now learning how much of this was “back room dealing” aka “don’t tell anyone this is happening” makes me question things even more. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmeisser Guy Posted Thursday at 12:46 PM Report Share Posted Thursday at 12:46 PM 4 hours ago, Got Uzi said: Funny how certain people knew it was going to happen and were told not to say anything about it. Also funny how the talking heads on YouTube know all the details but yet we still have no official documentation from ATF on this and to the fact that ATF hasn’t even given their own people guidance and information on it. Sure glad you made bank on these and everyone else who will be selling the new found “transferable” guns they have. Sure as hell would have been nice knowing this was coming before I’d sold some of the pre samples I had sold, as two of the ones I sold earlier this year popped as “transferable” so I literally lost out on $20k-$30k in value because it was all a big secret. Equally as funny-for the NFATCA being involved in this great “victory” they haven’t put anything on their website yet. The lack of information and now learning how much of this was “back room dealing” aka “don’t tell anyone this is happening” makes me question things even more. That's life in the big city, I guess. Or as George Carlin said it's a big party and you ain't invited!!! Be happy you made as much as you did instead of complaining!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damcv62 Posted Thursday at 10:45 PM Report Share Posted Thursday at 10:45 PM 17 hours ago, Bwana said: That's a pretty smug attitude. We asked for more information but you withheld / did not share any additional info. It would've been nice for all if you had openly shared what you knew besides the "I know stuff and you don't" position that seems to have been taken. Good for you to be "in the know". I'm curious where you got the early knowledge of this info? What else is known but not openly shared at this time? All info would be greatly appreciated. I don’t know why you are calling me smug, @Got Uzi said my shit was over priced. I tend to want to protect my reputation as this is a very small community, so I will in fact call people out for doing so. As to being upset and claiming “I know stuff and you don’t” the answers you seek are literally posted in this thread. Why should I take time to address your direct question when anyone that clicks on this thread can read the answers themselves? You act like I’m some how responsible for what happened. I’m not. I’m not part of nfatca nor am I even a member. I had no insider information. The answers you seek are posted in this thread, way back in March. Morphys openly posted their catalog at least 60 days ago. I’m not sure what you expect me to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.