PRE SAMPLE CRITERIA ABOUT RECLASS TO TRANSFERABLE EXPLAINED

[Greasegunner]

Here is Valuable Info that I received from Someone Who Talks to ATF on a Frequent Basis.

In Order for the Gun To Get Restrictions Removed, it MUST have Been Imported to the Police Dept Directly With NO Dealer  in Between

And White in Your E Form Inventory Means NOTHING

I Had one in White that was a post Sample and when i Filed a Form 3 it was Denied.

I have a Pre Sample that is white and I have on a ATF Letterhead that this example is TRANSFERABLE

 

Edited September 18, 2024 by Greasegunner
additional info

[Aren]

This is not true.

[Austringer]

Lol

[Got Uzi]

Unless it’s in writing on official ATF letterhead, I won’t believe Jack$hit about any of this.

 

John Keene was showing around a letter at TATA on the criteria of these guns and when I directly asked ATF on it at NFA-Fax they said nothing official like that exists. This entire thing has smelled fishy from the start and borderline scam/fraud. 
 

Talk is cheap, it’s what you can prove in court with documentation is what matters. 

[huggytree]

I think 4/8 months from now there will be horror stories on line from dealers who won’t or. Can’t refund buyers when the guns being sold are found to still be samples. 
 

I form 4’d the samples to myself to get a stamp to prove they are transferable.  Seems like very few are doing that 

 

 

[Bill in VA]

1 hour ago, huggytree said:

I think 4/8 months from now there will be horror stories on line from dealers who won’t or. Can’t refund buyers when the guns being sold are found to still be samples. 
 

I form 4’d the samples to myself to get a stamp to prove they are transferable.  Seems like very few are doing that 

 

 

Respectfully, simply having a stamp/approved Form 4 is not proof that a machine gun is transferrable. Plenty of pre-samples have transffered/transfer via Form 4. If you give up your SOT, for example, and later sell one of your pre-sample - only to another SOT, since it’s still a dealer sample - it’ll go from you the ex-SOT to the current SOT buyer on a Form 4.

[huggytree]

Transferred it via form 4 to myself. Not the business.  That’s  what I meant 

I assume once it transfers to an individual on a form 4 that’s proof it’s transferrable 

 

 

Edited September 18, 2024 by huggytree

[StrangeRanger]

Not necessarily true

Decades ago I had an M60 transfer to me as an individual only to subsequently receive a letter from ATF informing me that the builder (Stemple) had falsified the date of manufacture.  They let me keep it but I could not dispose of it other than to a LEA.  However when I decided that it was time to simplify my estate they had changed policy and were no longer approving belt-fed transfers to LEAs.  So it was effectively casket ballast.  I ended up selling the parts and torching the receiver  If they made a similar mistake on any of yours you probably won't be able to transfer them back to the business. 

Good luck with trying to outsmart the government

Edited September 18, 2024 by StrangeRanger

[BDMERC]

12 hours ago, Got Uzi said:

Unless it’s in writing on official ATF letterhead, I won’t believe Jack$hit about any of this.

 

John Keene was showing around a letter at TATA on the criteria of these guns and when I directly asked ATF on it at NFA-Fax they said nothing official like that exists. This entire thing has smelled fishy from the start and borderline scam/fraud. 
 

Talk is cheap, it’s what you can prove in court with documentation is what matters. 

Just curious if anyone found out anything about the Factory HK MP5's in the Morphy Auction that were purportedly transferable? 

[Christof Stehpinkler]

5 hours ago, StrangeRanger said:

they had changed policy and were no longer approving belt-fed transfers to LEAs. 

Who made this decision, and under what authority? Seems like this is ripe for a test suit, now that Chevron deference is a dead letter.

[BDMERC]

"In Order for the Gun To Get Restrictions Removed, it MUST have Been Imported to the Police Dept Directly With NO Dealer  in Between"

If true, I need to adjust the prices on my posties!!!!!!!!
 

[JECIII]

6 hours ago, StrangeRanger said:

Not necessarily true

Decades ago I had an M60 transfer to me as an individual only to subsequently receive a letter from ATF informing me that the builder (Stemple) had falsified the date of manufacture.  They let me keep it but I could not dispose of it other than to a LEA.  However when I decided that it was time to simplify my estate they had changed policy and were no longer approving belt-fed transfers to LEAs.  So it was effectively casket ballast.  I ended up selling the parts and torching the receiver  If they made a similar mistake on any of yours you probably won't be able to transfer them back to the business. 

Good luck with trying to outsmart the government

So your that guy I knew John's brother Mike and had heard this one.

[Got Uzi]

Rumor is that the Morphy’s MP5’s went through, but who is to say for sure. Personally I don’t trust Keene at all, but that’s my opinion. 

[StrangeRanger]

8 hours ago, JECIII said:

So your that guy I knew John's brother Mike and had heard this one.

I'm not the only one. See the post by Aaron in Mohnton PA dated 24 April about halfway down the page and my reply in this thread

https://www.sturmgewehr.com/forums/index.php?/topic/35345-dealer-sample-mp5-being-passed-off-as-transferable-on-gunbroker/#comment-123565

 

Edited September 19, 2024 by StrangeRanger

[Bill in VA]

On 9/18/2024 at 5:19 PM, huggytree said:

Transferred it via form 4 to myself. Not the business.  That’s  what I meant 

I assume once it transfers to an individual on a form 4 that’s proof it’s transferrable 

 

 

Nope. Let’s start by remembering that machine guns aren’t “on” forms, and thus the current form that was used to  transfer the gun has no bearing on it being transferrable or not.
 

A Form 3 is a tax-free transfer BETWEEN SOTs. I.e., both the sending party/transferor and the receiving party/transferee have to be SOTs.  Remember, the whole purpose of the Special Occupational Tax is to allow tax-free transfers between dealers

Pre-sample guns are called “keepers” for a reason: a SOT may retain any pre-sample guns in his inventory when he ceases being a SOT. If he later decides to sell one of his pre-sample keepers, it can still only got to a SOT. However, it cannot transfer tax-free via a Form 3 because only one party (the buyer/transferee) is a SOT. Instead, it transfers from the ex-SOT to the current SOT via a tax-paid Form 4. It’s still a dealer sample, it just transferred with a tax instead of without one. 
 

 

[huggytree]

I still have my sot.  If I transfer a presample that turned Transferrable to my personal trust that doesn’t prove it’s really transferrable ??

 

 

[Greasegunner]

Form 4 is not the Gold Standard- Neither are the colors in your Electronic Inventory

This is Proof- See letter -I redacted my personal info 

[Greasegunner]

On 9/17/2024 at 7:26 PM, Aren said:

This is not true.

Aren- What is Not True??

[Chef]

13 hours ago, Greasegunner said:

Form 4 is not the Gold Standard- Neither are the colors in your Electronic Inventory

This is Proof- See letter -I redacted my personal info 

While that may be valid today, tomorrow they can change their mind and re-classify it back to "sample" status.
Nothing is carved in stone.

[jbntex]

On 9/20/2024 at 1:26 PM, huggytree said:

I still have my sot.  If I transfer a presample that turned Transferrable to my personal trust that doesn’t prove it’s really transferrable ??

 

 

While I think having the machinegun previously transfer  on a tax paid Form 4 to a non-licensee if better than not having a previously approved tax paid transfer to a non-licensee, its still no guarantee.  This is the BATFE after all, that can and has made up new rules/regulations as they see fit and has a long and distinguished history of changing their mind on stuff.

So while I would agree at least one tax paid transfer to a non-licensee gives you a better indication that the machinegun is transferable there is virtually nothing that I can see which would prevent the BATFE on a subsequent transfer to say 'well we changed out mind its now classified as a pre-sample" again.

Now you could try and take them to court like Mike Cargill did when they did a 180 degree flip on Bumpstocks and spend a couple hundred grand in legal fees to fight the BATFE in court.  However in almost all cases the legal fees to fight  the BATFE on transferable vs. presample machinegun are probably more than the gun is worth.

Just my two cents anyway.

Edited September 21, 2024 by jbntex

[Bill in Bama]

Yep, the only winners in cases such as this are usually the lawyers.  "Lawfare" is a kind word for bleeding some sucker dry of all his money.   

[Greasegunner]

By the way, My pre sample  that ATF confirmed was now transferable

shipped to a dealer in Florida, They filed a form4 and the Form was approved

in 7 days.

[Rex Tyson]

22 minutes ago, Greasegunner said:

By the way, My pre sample  that ATF confirmed was now transferable

shipped to a dealer in Florida, They filed a form4 and the Form was approved

in 7 days.

How do you go about getting such a decision /letter?  I have a presample that is about a hundred digits different from one of the Morphys guns. I know for a fact it came from NASA in Florida and is stamped  T&E ONLY.  Do I start with a FOIA inquiry? Not interested in selling it but might be something in the future to entertain.

Rex

[PK90]

On 9/27/2024 at 10:45 AM, Rex Tyson said:

How do you go about getting such a decision /letter?

I sent an email containing a cover letter with the gun info and a copy of the form 3 to nfafax@atf.gov . Also, you can do the same at https://www.securerelease.us .

[Got Uzi]

Securerelease.us isn’t being used anymore. ATF is locked out of it and they haven’t been given their new system to use yet. That come right from the people at the ATF-FOIA office as I have two that hit a brick wall because the system hasn’t been updated. 

[Dscheid NFA Investments]

"In Order for the Gun To Get Restrictions Removed, it MUST have Been Imported to the Police Dept Directly With NO Dealer  in Between"

I thought Any Weapon going to a PD "had" to go thru a dealer?

PD's are not FFL's, nor do they pay SOT import taxes and do not have ATF required Bound Books.

So, is that statement true or was true prior to 1986?

 

[SPG]

Guns (especially Title 2) go directly to PDs all the time.  If I have a local PD that orders 20 HK416s, I set up the deal, and HK imports and transfers direct to the PD.  Looking at it another way, the ATF is not going to approve me getting 20 416s in any situation;  going direct to the PD is how these deals have generally worked in my experience.

-Sean

[Chef]

I guess it's up to your interpretation.

Taking into account that these pre-samples we are all talking about are all imported firearms, then "direct to the PD" from a foreign manufacturer or overseas source would imply being shipped from say, HK in Germany or Beretta in Italy, to the PD without being handled or papered by any entity in the states other than the PD.
So if a Mp5 was bought by a PD, it should have been (if we adhere to the exact definition of "direct") shipped directly to that PD from HK Germany and not to HK in Chantilly, where it was first registered, and then transferred to the PD.
Because even though HK in Chantilly is a branch of HK in Germany, the Mp5 was manufactured in Germany, not in Chantilly, and is a "foreign import" as evidenced by it's "pre 68" sample status.
And as I didn't see any wording making a distinction between "manufacturer" and "dealer," then HK in Chantilly could be interpreted as a "dealer" in the same way as if small time, home based SOT Joe Blow imported a handful of MGs in 1984 and sold them to a PD.

[clc3251]

Actually, most PD guns don’t transfer into an out of the importer FFL. It’s the same for domestic manufacture. If a PD wants to buy say a colt M-16 from Colt, a dealer may facilitate the sale by taking payment, but the form five will go directly from Colt to the department and the Gun is actually shipped from Colt.   The dealer never touches it and it’s never on their books.  It’s great that more guns are available to the transferable market due to this interpretation, however, Atf has a bad habit of just deciding things on their own and then either overturning themselves or getting overturned in court. I am truly shocked that this is happening under a democratic administration. A new administration may decide to reverse this practice in your transferable goes back to being a pre-sample for future transfers.

[johnsonlmg41]

2 hours ago, Chef said:

I guess it's up to your interpretation.

Taking into account that these pre-samples we are all talking about are all imported firearms, then "direct to the PD" from a foreign manufacturer or overseas source would imply being shipped from say, HK in Germany or Beretta in Italy, to the PD without being handled or papered by any entity in the states other than the PD.
So if a Mp5 was bought by a PD, it should have been (if we adhere to the exact definition of "direct") shipped directly to that PD from HK Germany and not to HK in Chantilly, where it was first registered, and then transferred to the PD.
Because even though HK in Chantilly is a branch of HK in Germany, the Mp5 was manufactured in Germany, not in Chantilly, and is a "foreign import" as evidenced by it's "pre 68" sample status.
And as I didn't see any wording making a distinction between "manufacturer" and "dealer," then HK in Chantilly could be interpreted as a "dealer" in the same way as if small time, home based SOT Joe Blow imported a handful of MGs in 1984 and sold them to a PD.

That is exactly how I interpret it.  Even if HK Chantilly had a mfr. license the guns were made overseas and they imported them, not manufactured them, and the transaction was not a direct import from Germany to the PD, Chantilly would have acted as a dealer/importer.   If FN USA brings in a M240 from Belgium to it's USA licensed manufacturing plant for a sale to a PD, I hardly see how that becomes transferable after the PD owns it for a few years?  None of this is codified nor spelled out in any "letter rule" either.  

There are for sure instances of federal agencies and military moving firearms from overseas to here without going through atf, but those AFAIK never make it into the registry for the common man.