And then that Glock for example, is NFA forever after once registered, correct?^^ This.
And then that Glock for example, is NFA forever after once registered, correct?^^ This.
So, just for additional informtion - I've done four of the tax free forms in the past day for someone. They are not asking for photos of the firearms at the time of submission (although there is a caveat that they can ask for them in the future as needed). It's also requiring two fingerprint cards, not one as they stated in the informational interview.
It's a very quick process and exactly like a standard form 1 minus the pay.gov window.
Yes. You can ignore the cover letter if you digitally uploaded your prints.I did 2 forms today...I included the eft with the submissions, but still received the cover letter via email requiring 2 fingerprint cards to be mailed within 10 days. Should I just ignore this?
I just picked up a shotgun I won at a raffle in Ft Wayne.Is there gun shop or company that can help me with the form1? I did the form 4 for a suppressor but the shop helped me with all the steps, I just don't want to screw up the forms. Fort Wayne area. Thanks
So, an MCK 'brace' would be considered as part of the rule change as well???Micro Conversion Kit
www.micro-roni.com
So...one could simply change the upper to a 16" OAL barrel and the use of a 'brace' (in place of a rifle 'stock') would be considered legal???A braced lower with a 16" upper would be considered non NFA and in compliance. Same as a rifle.
That is how I understand itSo, an MCK 'brace' would be considered as part of the rule change as well???
(I figured they were, but am just clarifying!)
Also, I heard that if one took off the brace and changed the buffer tube to be 'not able' to reattach the brace to the pistol, that one would still be okay with the pistol...just minus the brace, as it's the 'brace' that is being addressed, not ownership of the pistol itself?
I also heard that if one swapped the pistol barrel to one that is rifle length (aka, OAL of 16" (or longer) and then installed a rifle stock, than would also be considered a correct 'adjustment' for a brace on a AR pistol?
Are both or either of these two options correct...asking for a friend!
YesSo...one could simply change the upper to a 16" OAL barrel and the use of a 'brace' (in place of a rifle 'stock') would be considered legal???
Yep seems that way as I understand it.So...one could simply change the upper to a 16" OAL barrel and the use of a 'brace' (in place of a rifle 'stock') would be considered legal???
I picked-up a few of those on Friday...they looked pretty cool and for $16.99 each, I thought mebbe having a few of those around might come in handy someday...who knows???My understanding is for an AR, you have to install one of the foam-covered tubes to bring it up to compliance.
They're easy to remove from the NFA registry. You write a letter saying your Glock has been separated from the mck, Flux, etc and is no longer in an NFA configuration and needs to be removed from the registry.And then that Glock for example, is NFA forever after once registered, correct?
Really? First I've heard of this. Where in the new rule and/or FAQ did you see that?My understanding is for an AR, you have to install one of the foam covered tubes to bring it up to compliance.
I posted this in the Break Room last night but thought it might get wider notice if I posted here, Mods, forgive me if I have inadvertently violated a rule - my heart is in the right place.
Discussed back at post 29Really? First I've heard of this. Where in the new rule and/or FAQ did you see that?
You can remove an item from the NFA logs if you convert it to non nfa status. Basically you send them a letter telling them what you are doing, generally adding a 16“+ barrel to it. With the standard way, you are wasting 200 bucks but with the ‘free’ F1, you’re not out anything.And then that Glock for example, is NFA forever after once registered, correct?
Ok but where in the ATF's new rule or FAQ does it say "you have to install one of the foam covered tubes to bring it up to compliance."?Discussed back at post 29
Unfortutunately, they were very aware that people would do this, and closed that loophole. If you search the Rule for the words "tax-exemption", you'll see where they even discuss how to go after anyone who does this.So the way I read this is that you wouldn't even have to be in possession of a brace. All you need to do is submit the lower as the NFA item and then you could attach any stock to it (brace or otherwise) and have an SBR.
Am I reading that correctly?