The Lone Ranger

Here's a recent example: F4 from nonlicensee (me) to a SOT.... 24 days from the day I mailed it until it was stamped "APPROVED", and another 9 days to my mailbox for a total of 33 days using snail mail via the bank and that includes however many days of shutdown when the examiners were idle.

This was a defeat for a republican transgression. Diane Feinstein opined that it was done incorrectly and would likely be overturned in the courts. Trump was the director, Sessions followed orders and the republicans in congress supported it (if they don’t vote on it, no need to answer questions in the next election).

A pretty sound defeat on multiple levels …..

The only licenses covered by the GCA are federal firearms licenses. (but yeah it would be nice if the G could add one more word to make it completely clear)

MH, 26 USC 5845 and I'm too lazy to look up the subparagraph. Seller transfers to your BIL with no permission is "crime" #1 Your BIL taking possession with no approved transfer is #2 Interstate transport is from the GCA. "Contract Carrier" or "Common Carrier" are not defined, so if you apply some common sense and/or a dictionary it will be a business that transports goods or people for hire (probably one available to the public not just a one time job for a one time customer which would sink your battleship with most people). It's an individual Risk-Reward decision. Kind of up to your confidence level that in the unlikely event Murphy interferes with planning and every move is examined closely that your BIL will pass the straight face test with strangers who have no emotional investment in your hobby or bank account. I wouldn't even remotely consider it on a crack binge but that's just another no-cost internet opinion.

G-Hopper, In case you don't have one of these - a bit easier than trying to hit all the data points in a letter if you are so inclined to use it. Part B - Responsible Person Questionnaire (supplement for use by additional responsible persons) (atf.gov) Can't help you on a timeline, though.

They don’t know so any answer will only be speculating. “I don’t know” doesn’t work well in gov - see COVID-19 pandemic. Examiners don’t work on computers so they won’t be reassigned to system repairs. If it settles down and there can be a routine established a % of examiners will be assigned to e-forms with the remainder on paper and that will change with the trends. A similar example is with NICS. In 2014 they had three call centers and roughly 50% of dealers used e-check. As more FFLs opted for e-check, staffing @ call centers was reduced. Now there is one left as approximately 90% of FFLs use e-check.

In theory we could have perpetual amnesties. 90 days each, 4x per year and 5-6 days into the fifth. Long as we are dreaming, may as well dream big. The Veteran’s Heritage Firearms Act was a nice thought but republicans repeatedly refused to pass it when they had control of both chambers and the WH. Short of a third/fourth party miraculously sweeping control it’s hard to imagine.

I must be illiterate as well as senile.... figures. Never meant to convey that an importer using as a sales sample would remove the sales sample restriction. It would need to have gone to a government agency. There are two realistic allowances involved in almost every NFA import: 1) Brought in for government 2) An odd reason very few can legitimately claim 3) Brought in for sales sample H&K won't meet the definition of government entity so #3 it is in your SD scenario. The claim being made about these MP-5s is that they meet #1. At least that's how I tracked it but as always I might be smoking bamboo again.

Not all - pay close attention to the text about how/why they came into the country. If it was imported and went to a licensee = restricted (sales sample). If it went directly to a gov agency ... not restricted. I'm not confirming or denying anything but it is an interesting and reasonable thought process in accordance with the law.

Attached for those interested to read it.... GOA v Garland.pdf

As others have noted, a direct transfer to you as a C&R holder is the least expensive way to transfer to you (one transfer tax). As a C&R holder, I've bought several C&R SMGs from individuals out-of-state. On the other hand, I sometimes like to get the gun close to me quickly, and the seller could transfer the gun directly to a SOT dealer near you in your state (which would cost a $200 tax stamp and is typically a quicker transfer) and the SOT could then transfer it directly to you (another $200 tax stamp). The Lone Ranger is the Board expert on transfers, although I don't recall seeing any recent posts from him but may have missed them. Still here, Mr. H but not much recently. Had to move to a warmer locale. I would do direct to the collector FFL. Sometimes you run into people that insist a dealer needs to be in the middle but it's rubbish.

I recently transferred a silencer to a co-worker. When he went to get printed, he and the guy doing the prints discussed the matter and determined that despite the instructions, a different print card would be more appropriate for the purpose (it was another FBI produced card, just a different # designation and color).... sent back. It might depend on who opens the envelope.

Same as other firearms - selling to a person out of state requires using a dealer in the buyer's state who in turn transfers to your buyer. As bmarvin noted, the $400 in tax may dampen enthusiasm and your results. I somewhat recently let go of a not collectible item (modern SBR) - it was worthwhile transferring to a consignment dealer for $200 and let him get a better price.

"I'm not gonna answer that because then it becomes an issue".