ATF and 2nd Amnesty Discussion

[Rekraps]

Several other threads have discussed individual states proposing to sell SMG's, and the idea of a possible second ATF Amnesty.

The ATF still has two Amnesty Period options left at their disposal. I believe that the issue is in one sense political (how the Dems will wail) and more importantly what guns would be covered by the Amnesty. Now that most WW2 vets are no longer here, and Korean / Vietnam vets are passing, families are finding these un-registered guns in attics and basements and don't know what to do. I believe there are a substantial number of guns out there. From the Government's side, another general amnesty is troublesome as there are tons of kits out there that would be hastily manufactured and registered, modern weapons that clearly do not fall into the spirit of Amnesty and more. At the same time, getting what I believe to be a substantial number of non-declared guns into the registry means they won't end up on the street.

I've thought about this over the years and believe that if the ATF were to offer Amnesty II, it would work only if it included US guns produced prior to the Vietnam conflict date and foreign guns through the end of the Vietnam conflict. Clearly excluded would be all M16/M14 platforms and other modern US guns. In addition, to reduce the chance that surplus foreign kits would be hastily assembled into MG's, all foreign and qualified US guns would have to have original receivers (absolutely NO rewelds or over-stamps of any type) and be substantially SN matching guns. So, all WW2 and Korean War guns, US or otherwise would be eligible as long as they were essentially SN matching. Moving into the Vietnam war era, Thompsons, M3's, MAT 49's, KM50's, PPSH's, M45's and early version AK's would make the cut. M16's and M14's would not as they were and are US property guns. 

The ATF would have the obligation and right to examine any particular gun where the provenance was in question or the gun did not fit the amnesty guidelines. 

What do you guys think?

[GUNGUY45]

I thought the '68 law allowed amnesty, BUT the '86 law didn't provide for one, & it closed the registry.

So, NO more additions.

 

Is that not the case?

[Mike Hammer]

Your getting all worked up about something that will never happen. Once the government takes away freedoms, you never get them back. Change will only occur from a refusal to obey, supported by violence if necessary. 

[68coupe]

35 minutes ago, Mike Hammer said:

Your getting all worked up about something that will never happen. Once the government takes away freedoms, you never get them back. Change will only occur from a refusal to obey, supported by violence if necessary. 

Not so fast. While it's mostly true, ATF did a revue and decided to flip a few more law enforcement samples in the registry. I don't know or understand all the details, but it was discussed at length in several forums. It's all well above my pay grade.

[Rekraps]

On 3/6/2026 at 9:21 AM, 68coupe said:

Not so fast. While it's mostly true, ATF did a revue and decided to flip a few more law enforcement samples in the registry. I don't know or understand all the details, but it was discussed at length in several forums. It's all well above my pay grade.

Great note. So..... it is possible. justy speculating how it would work.

[APEXgunparts]

There was a meeting for members of the F.A.I.R. Trade group with the ATF senior staff ( with their senior legal counsel in attendance ) at the Shot Show.
The ATF amnesty was brought up by someone very well versed in the matter.
The question was well stated, and unlike every other topic presented, the ATF side stepped on the answer.
Everything else that was asked and concerned changes to the law we were told to watch the federal register and comment accordingly.
We were NOT given that answer about another amnesty.

Richard

[Rekraps]

On 3/8/2026 at 9:11 PM, APEXgunparts said:

There was a meeting for members of the F.A.I.R. Trade group with the ATF senior staff ( with their senior legal counsel in attendance ) at the Shot Show.
The ATF amnesty was brought up by someone very well versed in the matter.
The question was well stated, and unlike every other topic presented, the ATF side stepped on the answer.
Everything else that was asked and concerned changes to the law we were told to watch the federal register and comment accordingly.
We were NOT given that answer about another amnesty.

Richard

So there you have it. Given the initial post above I can see why. But then again, in the long run, registering what may be the last "batch" of hidden or unregistered SMG's would be a good thing for the ATF, the police and the country.

[thompsonteenager]

On 3/8/2026 at 8:11 PM, APEXgunparts said:

There was a meeting for members of the F.A.I.R. Trade group with the ATF senior staff ( with their senior legal counsel in attendance ) at the Shot Show.
The ATF amnesty was brought up by someone very well versed in the matter.
The question was well stated, and unlike every other topic presented, the ATF side stepped on the answer.
Everything else that was asked and concerned changes to the law we were told to watch the federal register and comment accordingly.
We were NOT given that answer about another amnesty.

Richard

I did send a message on a social media platform a few months back at AAG Dhillon proposing that the admin should do another ATF amnesty. She actually "liked" my message. We will see but I hope and pray it happens simply for the sake of historical guns. I would think if any big ATF regulatory changes were to occur it would happen after the new ATF director gets confirmed. As we all know the feds take forever to move on anything especially when its in our favor

Edited March 25 by thompsonteenager
mistype

[Rekraps]

9 hours ago, thompsonteenager said:

I did send a message on a social media platform a few months back at AAG Dhillon proposing that the admin should do another ATF amnesty. She actually "liked" my message. We will see but I hope and pray it happens simply for the sake of historical guns. I would think if any big ATF regulatory changes were to occur it would happen after the new ATF director gets confirmed. As we all know the feds take forever to move on anything especially when its in our favor

You are 100% correct. My idea was simply the preservation of historical SMG's that we all know are out there... the biggest enforcement challenge will be how to keep the samples  & kit jobs, etc. off the amnesty.

[thompsonteenager]

On 3/25/2026 at 6:22 AM, Rekraps said:

You are 100% correct. My idea was simply the preservation of historical SMG's that we all know are out there... the biggest enforcement challenge will be how to keep the samples  & kit jobs, etc. off the amnesty.

Another reason why they wouldn't announce it early would be so people cant make things in anticipation of an amnesty. 

[Rekraps]

On 3/27/2026 at 3:07 PM, thompsonteenager said:

Another reason why they wouldn't announce it early would be so people cant make things in anticipation of an amnesty. 

Correct. Plus, this time around, no "tubes" to register.. just pre-1975 guns (foreign) and pre-1962 guns (american), per the description of how I would manage this process, outlined above. 

[thompsonteenager]

3 hours ago, Rekraps said:

Correct. Plus, this time around, no "tubes" to register.. just pre-1975 guns (foreign) and pre-1962 guns (american), per the description of how I would manage this process, outlined above. 

My opinion is anything pre 76 (C&R cutoff) should be allowed regardless when it comes to MGs. Just to make it cleaner. In my opinion. 

[RoscoeTurner]

Unfortunately, we probably have a better chance of finding one of Santa Claus' elves at the North Pole than we do of seeing another amnesty.

[huggytree]

They added a couple hundred Colt m16s to the registry for mr. keisayian 10 years ago 

 

[BillyDixon]

years ago i asked an atf agent his thoughts on another ammensty, he said it would mess up a lot of ongowing investigations,  guys  would say in court that they were going to register it in the next ammisty, and perhaps jury would buy that  !, interesting thought, just sayn

[Rekraps]

On 4/5/2026 at 5:39 PM, huggytree said:

They added a couple hundred Colt m16s to the registry for mr. keisayian 10 years ago 

 

They did and I own two of them.

[thompsonteenager]

On 4/5/2026 at 4:39 PM, huggytree said:

They added a couple hundred Colt m16s to the registry for mr. keisayian 10 years ago 

 

What's the story on that? I was only 12 then, so I wouldn't be versed in NFA lore yet haha. 

[thompsonteenager]

16 hours ago, BillyDixon said:

years ago i asked an atf agent his thoughts on another ammensty, he said it would mess up a lot of ongowing investigations,  guys  would say in court that they were going to register it in the next ammisty, and perhaps jury would buy that  !, interesting thought, just sayn

That's what the ATF says in one of their documents also. It doesn't mean someone cant make them change their mind thats higher up though. 

[Archmark]

With the widespread availability of FRT's & "Glock Switches", I seriously doubt that many, if any, of the unregistered "future amnesty" guns would ever end up "out on the street."...

[TBird]

Look back at the "Veterans Heritage Firearms Act" from years past.  

[Archmark]

Looks like the  Veterans Heritage Firearms Act died in Congress around 2017, 9 years ago. Doesn't look like it had much support back then & nobody has reintroduced it again, so I'd say there's little to no interest in codifying it into law. The Pols had their chance & passed on it...

[Bill in VA]

I fail to see what’s magical about 1975/pre-1976. Likewise, I fail to see any reason to exclude tube guns, reactivated/rebuilt parts kits, etc. The 1968 Amnesty made no such distinction. 

A repeal of 922(o) would be better than an amnesty, of course, but then we’d have to deal with those pesky post-1976 guns, tube guns, “Glock switches”, and anything else.

For years, the ATF has resisted another amnesty because they say it would jeopardize ongoing investigations and prosecutions, all the more so since they have repeatedly testified that the NFRTR is 100% accurate. 

It’s nice to daydream about another amnesty or a full repeal of 922(o) but as another somewhat legendary MG internet poster once said, “monkeys will fly out of my butt before that happens.” 

Edited May 8 by Bill in VA

[Rekraps]

18 hours ago, Bill in VA said:

I fail to see what’s magical about 1975/pre-1976. Likewise, I fail to see any reason to exclude tube guns, reactivated/rebuilt parts kits, etc. The 1968 Amnesty made no such distinction. 

A repeal of 922(o) would be better than an amnesty, of course, but then we’d have to deal with those pesky post-1976 guns, tube guns, “Glock switches”, and anything else.

For years, the ATF has resisted another amnesty because they say it would jeopardize ongoing investigations and prosecutions, all the more so since they have repeatedly testified that the NFRTR is 100% accurate. 

It’s nice to daydream about another amnesty or a full repeal of 922(o) but as another somewhat legendary MG internet poster once said, “monkeys will fly out of my butt before that happens.” 

Great question, and the reason i worded the parameters like I did was to specifically address WW2, Korean and certain Vietnam era guns that were "snuck" back into the USA. This was a period of time when that could be done, albeit not without dangers if caught, but nonetheless, it happened. MG's of this limited period would be C&R weapons that the troops brought back and have stored in their attics for decades. Now that those generations are passing, the historical value of the guns, and providing the families a way to legally manage the guns is important. Excluding unregistered receivers (or Tubes) is not the same as having a WW2 MP38u40, or a Korean War Chinese Type 50 (PPSH), or a K50M from Vietnam. Clearly M16's and such were US government property and were "stolen" versus picked up on the battlefield. Excluding non-matching SMG's prevents of late imported parts kits which were 100% no bring-backs from being registered by every SOT out there. So the Swedish K, picked up in Vietnam is good to go, whereas the parts kit "K", mated to a new receiver or unoriginal non-matching receiver is not. Again, the idea is to tie the gun to one that was brought back years ago, not a modern build.

[68coupe]

5 hours ago, Rekraps said:

Great question, and the reason i worded the parameters like I did was to specifically address WW2, Korean and certain Vietnam era guns that were "snuck" back into the USA. This was a period of time when that could be done, albeit not without dangers if caught, but nonetheless, it happened. MG's of this limited period would be C&R weapons that the troops brought back and have stored in their attics for decades. Now that those generations are passing, the historical value of the guns, and providing the families a way to legally manage the guns is important. Excluding unregistered receivers (or Tubes) is not the same as having a WW2 MP38u40, or a Korean War Chinese Type 50 (PPSH), or a K50M from Vietnam. Clearly M16's and such were US government property and were "stolen" versus picked up on the battlefield. Excluding non-matching SMG's prevents of late imported parts kits which were 100% no bring-backs from being registered by every SOT out there. So the Swedish K, picked up in Vietnam is good to go, whereas the parts kit "K", mated to a new receiver or unoriginal non-matching receiver is not. Again, the idea is to tie the gun to one that was brought back years ago, not a modern build.

I humbly submit that ANY battlefield pick-up or recovery isn't "stealing", even if it's from a fallen soldier from one's own forces. It was either abandoned or dropped as the soldier carrying it fell, and is therefore fair game. Every soldier is and was not only entitled to "level up". The Red army in WWII not only encouraged the practice, they relied on it, as not enough arms were available to outfit every soldier.

Therefore, if a soldier were to "acquire" a second M16, Thompson or M3 from a fallen soldier, it's his. Naturally ,we're in a VERY grey area here. There were many "unauthorized" weapons in Viet Nam. These were often sold or traded to other soldiers that were staying when they rolled out. Examples of this are now traded between SOTs. It would be nice to see some, or all of these come back on the open market.

Just my musings, Karl

[Bill in VA]

Eh. As long as my Remchesterby shotgun isn’t prohibited then I’m good with it.