BATF requires additional info from CT residents

anderson76 · Apr 7, 2014

I came across this and thought that it might be of interest to some here. We speculate as to how much the BATF scrutinizes applications for compliance with state law. Here is a thread about a CT resident having of Form 1 kicked back:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_8_26/555913_SBR_correction_letter______one_letter_added_.html

For those that don’t know, CT passed a single feature AW ban. Those who lawfully possessed AWs before the effective date of the ban had until the end of December to register with the State. The State is supposed to return an assault weapons certificate but it seems to be taking a long time.

IMBLITZVT · Apr 7, 2014

anderson76 said:
I came across this and thought that it might be of interest to some here. We speculate as to how much the BATF scrutinizes applications for compliance with state law. ....

Well with 9-10 month wait, I almost hope they take the time to actually check and make sure the gun is actually legal in the state. On the other hand the AW Cert is BS but I guess the Feds are just following state BS this time. If their processing times were not out of control long, this would not be much of an issue. Certainly makes a good base for a lawsuit. I would also mention that their level of scrutiny ranges wildly! Sometimes the ATF approves the wrong form number, as I had happen with one of my guns. They did not even know if it was on a Form 5 or form 4. The form 4 was not filled out properly...etc. However when there are some politics at play and they have bosses watching, then they are looking at every little thing, as we see in this case.

TNW · Apr 7, 2014

Does this have any pertinence to form 1s and 4s being proved in Maryland?

IMBLITZVT · Apr 7, 2014

TNW said:
Does this have any pertinence to form 1s and 4s being proved in Maryland?

Not really other than it confirms the ATF does check and see if gun is legal in your state before approving. Some have been talking about it with SBRs that were approved post SB281... worried that even with the Approved Form 1 or 4 it would still be illegal to do.

anderson76 · Apr 7, 2014

TNW said:
Does this have any pertinence to form 1s and 4s being proved in Maryland?

It may have no pertinence or it may foreshadow things to come. MSP just went on record that that SBRs are Handguns – Will BATF now require copies of HQLs?

TNW · Apr 8, 2014

IMBLITZVT said:
Not really other than it confirms the ATF does check and see if gun is legal in your state before approving. Some have been talking about it with SBRs that were approved post SB281... worried that even with the Approved Form 1 or 4 it would still be illegal to do.

That's what I was referring to... I've heard a few people make the "they wouldn't approve a firearm that was illegal to own" argument and this seems to support that.

IMBLITZVT · Apr 8, 2014

TNW said:
That's what I was referring to... I've heard a few people make the "they wouldn't approve a firearm that was illegal to own" argument and this seems to support that.

I was one of those that said the ATF should not approve anything illegal. Now it is the ATF but if its a grey area with an ATF approval... I think you are good to go.

Broncolou · Apr 10, 2014

I'm sure MD will come up with this as soon as they realize they can......delete this thread..... :-(

USAFRavenR6 · Apr 10, 2014

TNW said:
That's what I was referring to... I've heard a few people make the "they wouldn't approve a firearm that was illegal to own" argument and this seems to support that.

I do not have a HQL and just had a form 1 come back approved this week on a stripped lower transferred as other prior to Oct. 1. paperwork was submitted in June of 2013 and it was approved just fine, business as usual.

Blueclawz · May 6, 2014

CONFIRMATION

As of this past weekend I received back MULTIPLE F1's (Eforms) as Disapproved. All were filed post 10/1...all were being constructed from lowers and weapons owned legally PRE10/1. Included with the Disapproval was a conversation with the NFA Examiner discussing the specific documentation to accompany my Re-submission of the F1's. I was given the excerpt from SB-281 explaining "copycat weapons" and asked to provide documentation in the form of a "memo" or statement to the affect that the completed weapon would not fall into that category.
Given the MSP Licensing Division statement dated 3/20/2014 which expressly covers the SBR and SBS weapons this is not good. It appears that the NFA branch is now attempting like many on this board, the firearms community and our legislators to attempt to interpret regulations which were expressly designed to not be finite in the first place. I consider this a major issue not just for my own waste of time but for the fact that the documents were drawn with the intent of confusion and thus have been successful. I always considered the NFA to be the final word on Form 1 applications....they certainly have no issues with accepting the checks and handing out the stamps all those years. If they intend to defer to state interpretation of firearms and firearm traits it seems to me that the NFA as a whole would become obsolete given there is already mass inconsistency just in terminology. This also leaves open the fact that any state could sign in legal ownership and construction of a post-86 MG.....oh what a tangled web.

BATF requires additional info from CT residents

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

anderson76

Active Member

IMBLITZVT

Ultimate Member

TNW

Active Member

IMBLITZVT

Ultimate Member

anderson76

Active Member

TNW

Active Member

IMBLITZVT

Ultimate Member

Broncolou

Active Member

USAFRavenR6

Active Member

Blueclawz

Bottom Feeder

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Latest threads

Forum statistics

Share this page