johnfreeman

Form IV for a M11/9mm sent in April 29, approved Aug 26, stamp received Sept 23

Add NC to the list. Governor signed HB 562 which among other things, has a "shall sign" clause.

....nor are they prepared to do much of anything else in a late 20th century state of efficiency. They can't even execute a simple on-line form I & 4 registry without it getting so munged up it crashes. They're still processing forms in paper. They mired in classical bureacratic miasmic inefficiency .

You never know what the local gun shop will end up with.Any idea how old this Wards / Stevens 520 might be ? Thanks.. its really in great shape.

News media misleading when it comes to guns? Say it aint so!

....and for those of us with Forms I and IV in the Efile system, we are left to guess as to how we are to be notified......

Apparently zero progress in any sort of progress in fixing it.

Congratulations! Glad to see that another one out of jail on a trust. Would be great to see some pix. John

Good post, and I fully agree.

We? Nobody claimed to have a date showing the "change in the standard". If you're curious, roll up your sleeves and share what you find. John

That's really fun to see. Thanks for posting it....

Let us know what you find out.

It does not meet todays definition. Whether it's legal to own if was demilled to the regs of the day and subsequenty sold, is a question that only the folks at the ATF can answer (in writing). It's very similar to the Section 922 rules on the "domestic parts" content rules for military looking weapons. The rules in that section are for making/importing not owning.

It's a good topic! I think in addition to the lawyers and contracts you note, the internet helps get the word around quickly, if people are getting scammed. A factual note here, Strurm, Subguns , Uzitalk, and a few others will quickly communicate a scam...

If that's todays instructions, then it is not what (perhaps) the same organization said at the time it was destroyed. The regulations are for the destruction action, not for the subsequent possession. So what is the legality of the possession of a parts kit that was destroyed in accordance with the regulations of the time...30 yrs later? Who knows...

The ATF, though their poorly worded and contradictory rulings and publications, makes it funtionally impossible to determine what is and what isn't an NFA item. Had they merely said "this new torch cutting requirement is retroactive and must be carried out on all previously destroyed NFA items" like most real companies do when they are making such decisions, this would all be moot. On the other hand, I'm not sure they could legally do so. The only fully CYA move would be to write the Technology Branch , describe the issue and hope that they might actually respond clearly to your question. They quite likely, if they choose to answer, would just quote the contemporary regulation without specifically answering your question, leaving you in the same situation as you are today. Buy the damned thing, and plan on hiring an attorney if they decide to harrass you.

It seems largely discfunctional at any time now, having ground to a total stop. It really is hard to imagine that someone actually paid for that completely amateurish menu page, but I guess that matches the totally inept function of the page , which, even on a big day, probably handles 10% of the traffic that the Advance Auto, or Dunkin Donut web pages process in a half hour. I'm sure they'll fix health care though.

That seems right. Just because it's no longer in a demilled configuration that can be imported doesn't mean that it's not legal to sell once in the country. John

It was (and is) an interesting thread. "Why did you buy 5" " Because I didn't have enough money for ten"

Got an email from them today... they're going to reboot the server 4 times a day (taking one hour each time) to increase performance while they debug the system. It's just really hard to understand how a system that does a relatively few transactions a day can be so fubared.

Anyone been noticing the lack of availability of ATFonline.gov? I'm not sure what or how this software is supported but it's been circling the drain over the past few weeks, and today seems to be totally unavailable to log into. The inability of the government to effectively implement ANYTHING, is really astounding. While very well intentioned, this effort should have been outsourced to a capable contractor and it should have been put in place 15 yrs ago. This is NOT rocket science. John

There's a lot of NFA/MG's here. Sheriffs sigs are sometimes iffy because of a leftie Democrat AG. The 2011 legislature did away with the local MG "Permit" process. NC is a pretty 2nd A friendly spot.

Just had 2 Form IV's to my trust get approved Efile, in 91 calendar days. I picked them up Sunday. I

Oh I have, which is exactly why I now have one. My choices were: a) Form a trust and purchase items with it. B ) Forego ever owning an NFA item There's a huge number of us who don't have the option of getting a cooperative CLEO. No option. Those who live in a place where you're not granted a gold star when entering a CLEO office (even though with a spotless record, and a career long history of responsibilty and honesty) are out in the cold. To say we're "abusing" the only avenue available to legally own a NFA item, I think is a stretch. I did the CLEO thing. Mine wouldn't even accept an appointment request. The only abuses I see in this process is that we have to go thru these hurtles to begin with, that there's CLEO's who abdicate their responsibility to sign a form, and yes, there might have been a handfull of scumbags who have gamed the system and gotten items they were not legally able to own. The other 99.99% of NFA trust holders are just as justified in their NFA possession as those who happen (for the time being) to have a cooperative CLEO. IMHO of course! John