What are the requirements for engraving an item you are building on a Form 1?

Posted on January 25, 2015 by John Pierce

Engraving

This is one of those questions that gets asked over and over again and I should have written about it long before now.

But today I correct that omission.

Let’s walk through this in 10 easy steps.

1)  When you build an NFA item subsequent to a Form 1 approval, you are legally the ‘manufacturer’ of the resulting NFA item even if it is built upon an existing serialized lower.

2)  27 CFR 478.92 and 27 CFR 479.102 both lay out the requirements for placing identifying markings on items you ‘manufacture’.

3)  These regulations require that you engrave a serial number, model (if applicable), caliber or gauge, manufacturer’s name, and the city and state where the item was ‘manufactured’.

4)  If you are using an NFA trust to hold your NFA items then the trust name is the manufacturer’s name you will need to engrave.  If not, you will need to engrave your full legal name as the manufacturer.

5)  When you ‘manufacture’ an SBR or SBS using an existing lower the ATF allows you to ‘adopt’ the serial number, caliber/gauge, and/or model already identified on the lower if the lower meets or exceeds the marking requirements.  See ATF Ruling 2013-3 embedded below.

6)  The marking may be engraved, cast, or stamped.

7)  All markings must be to a minimum depth of .003 of an inch as measured from the flat metal surface.

8)  The serial number must be in a print size no smaller than 1/16th of an inch.

9)  There is no specific statutory or regulatory height requirement for the remaining information other than it be ‘legible’.  However, most NFA collectors choose to engrave the manufacturer’s name, city, and state in a 1/16th print size as well.

10)  Laser engraving is an amazing process and can result in beautiful work on your firearm but make sure that any laser engraving shop you select is capable of meeting the depth requirements above.

ATF Ruling 2013-3 allows for the ‘adoption’ of existing markings

Posted in 80% Lower, ATF, BATFE, Engraving, Form 1, Manufacturing, NFA Trusts, SBR, Short Barreled Rifles, Short Barreled Shotguns | Comments Off on What are the requirements for engraving an item you are building on a Form 1?

Trust names must be exact when completing ATF forms

Posted on January 23, 2015 by John Pierce

ImportantA flustered client called me earlier today from the parking lot of his local gun dealer / range with a rather startling question.

He wanted to know whether it was acceptable to change the name of his trust on a Form 4 from ‘Example Arms Trust‘, which is the actual name on the instrument to ‘Example Revocable Trust‘.

When I assured him that it was definitely not acceptable to do so, he explained that the manager of the gun store had just done that very thing on the Form 4s for the suppressor he was attempting to purchase.

Apparently, when he questioned her, she said that it “was fine and that they do it all the time.”  I informed him that if they truly did it “all the time” then those other applicants were in for a rude surprise.  Namely a letter that looks like this:

Must_Match

After our call, he returned to the store and asked that it be changed whereupon the manager became angry and things went downhill from there.  Ultimately though, no incorrect Form 4s were filed.

But what would have happened if the Form 4s had been sent in with the name being incorrect?

The most likely result would have been a denial letter such as the one shown above.

I have to say that I am absolutely amazed that a gun store manager would not understand the need for exactitude. After all, this is the ATF we are talking about.

Let me state their position for you clearly:

The name of the trust is not negotiable.

It is a legal name and must match exactly between the instrument and what is placed on the Form 4 (or any other ATF form).  The slightest deviation is a problem.  A friend of mine who is an FFL has had Form 4s rejected when the word ‘The‘ was erroneously added in front of the name of the trust.

But a denial is the best possible result.  If the ATF somehow erred and approved the Form 4 then you would have an item registered in the NFRTR under the name of a trust that you are not affiliated with.  This could have serious legal consequences for the owner.

So how do you protect yourself from similar issues?

1)  If your dealer is assisting you with the completion of your Form 4, make sure that the name entered on the form matches your trust name exactly.

2)  If you receive a denial from the ATF because the name does not match, contact me and I will assist you in submitting a corrected application.

3)  If you receive an approved tax stamp in a name different than that of your trust, contact me and I will assist you in either renaming your existing trust (if you have no other items registered in the original name of the trust) or in drafting a new trust to match the incorrect name.

Remember … you are ultimately the one attesting to the validity of the information you provide on the Form 4.

Posted in ATF, BATFE, FFL Issues, Form 4, NFA Transfers, NFA Trusts | Comments Off on Trust names must be exact when completing ATF forms

Sig Sauer issues a press release hinting at legal action over stabilizing brace issue

Posted on January 21, 2015 by John Pierce

Arbitrary_And_CapriciousUpdate:  For the latest news on the stabilizing brace issue, see my March 21, 2017 update.

…

I received a call today from a client who had just read my article about the ATF’s open letter concerning the stabilizing brace issue.  He was coming to the issue late but was incensed that the ATF was reversing their previous position.

He asked me if the NFA community was “going to take this lying down.”  I told him I expected that several manufacturers were exploring their legal options.

I spent a few minutes trying to explain the basics of administrative law and how an agency ruling can be challenged as ‘arbitrary and capricious’ but went on to caution that the courts will grant significant deference to agency action.

It turns out that Sig Sauer at least is definitely considering such a challenge.  They released the following press release this afternoon.

NEWINGTON, N.H. (January 21, 2015)—SIG SAUER, Inc., has issued the following statement about the recent opinion by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in regard to the SB15 and SBX pistol stabilizing braces.

“As reaffirmed in an Open Letter by ATF’s Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division dated January 16, 2015, the Pistol Stabilizing Brace (SB15 and SBX) is legal to own, legal to purchase, and legal to install on a pistol. SIG SAUER® believes that the PSB improves the single-handed shooting performance of buffer tube equipped pistols, and offers the product both as an accessory and pre-installed on a number of pistols.

“The Open Letter goes further to rescind a previous private letter regarding the ‘intent’ of the user of the pistol stabilizing brace. In the letter of January 16, 2015, ATF opines that a person’s actual use of the product as a shoulder stock can change the legal classification of the product. However, the Open Letter explicitly states: “ATF hereby confirms that if used as designed—to assist shooters in stabilizing a handgun while shooting with a single hand—the device is not considered a shoulder stock and therefore may be attached to a handgun without making a NFA firearm.”

“We question ATF’s reversal in position that the classification of the brace may be altered by its use. We are reviewing the legal precedents and justification for this position, and will address our concerns with ATF in the near future.”

“We will vigorously defend the classification of all of our products and our consumers’ right to use them in accordance with the law. If we find that the open letter opinion is outside the scope of the law, we will seek further review.”

Posted in Administrative Law, AR Pistols, ATF, ATF Guidance Letters, BATFE, SBR, Stabilizing Brace | Comments Off on Sig Sauer issues a press release hinting at legal action over stabilizing brace issue

We have an eForms update

Posted on January 21, 2015 by John Pierce

Expect_DelaysFor some time now the ATF has been hinting that they would have an important update concerning eForms 3 and 4 at the 2015 Shot Show.

Many optimists had hoped that the ATF might be ready to announce that these eForms are ready to return to service.

I have been telling clients that this was hoping for too much and that they might expect eForms 3 and 4 to return to service by the 2nd quarter of the year.

It turns out that even this was too optimistic.  In the just-released ‘State of eForms’ newsletter (embedded in full below), the ATF reveals that there has been some progress but not nearly enough to herald an impending return to service.  The key portion of the newsletter states:

While eForms 3 and 4 have not yet been restored to service, there has been progress. ATF has engaged a new vendor to create a more robust platform for the processing of the eForms 3 and 4. The new platform will be designed to eliminate the issues that caused the removal of the eForms 3 and 4 from service.

The new eForms will also provide enhanced functionality such as batch processing and possibly some automated approval functionality for certain forms. The vendor has recently been cleared and has already started to work with ATF in engaging the industry for system requirements on certain processes. Once the requirements have been finalized, we will begin the design and review of the new eForms platform. We hope to have eForms 3 and 4 returned to service by late 2015.

So … it will be late 2015 at the earliest.  And if I were a betting man, I would wager that it will be 2016 before we see a full return of eForms 3 and 4.  Thankfully, the added staff continues to reduce the backlog of paper applications and cut down on wait times.

Posted in ATF, BATFE, eForms, Form 3, Form 4, NFA Transfers, NFA Trusts, Processing Times | Comments Off on We have an eForms update

The ATF has issued an open letter on the stabilizing brace issue

Posted on January 16, 2015 by John Pierce

Pistol_Brace_ShoulderedUpdate:  The ATF has reversed their position once again.  See my March 21, 2017 update for the latest news.

………

Based upon a flurry of questions from friends and clients, on December 28th of last year I wrote an article entitled “Has the ATF changed their mind about the Sig brace?”

In that article I pointed out that the ATF is seemingly taking the position that “using the brace as a stock would constitute a ‘redesign’ or ‘remaking’ of a weapon ‘designed to be fired from the should’” and therefore subject to the registration and taxation requirements of the NFA.

Several people contacted me to express their opinion that I was reading too much into the recent letters from the ATF.

It appears however that I was correct in my interpretation of which way the wind was blowing.  Today the ATF has released an open letter to the NFA community in which they ‘clarify’ their position on the use of stabilizing braces.

The entire letter is embedded below but the key messages from the letter are:

1)  “Any person who redesigns a stabilizing brace for use as a shoulder stock makes a NFA firearm when attached to a pistol with a rifled barrel under 16 inches in length or a handgun with a smooth bore under 18 inches in length.  

2)  “Redesign is defined as ‘to alter the appearance or function of’.

3)  “Since the pistol stabilizing brace was neither ‘designed’ nor approved to be used as a shoulder stock, use as a shoulder stock constitutes a ‘redesign’ of the device because a possessor has changed the very function of the item.

4)  “Any individual letters stating otherwise are contrary to the plain language of the NFA, misapply Federal law, and are hereby revoked.”

Despite the absurdity of a position that misuse of an item constitutes a remaking of that item, it appears that the age of the ‘poor man’s SBR’ has come to an end.

 

Posted in AR Pistols, ATF, ATF Guidance Letters, BATFE, Firearms Technology Branch, NFA Trusts, SBR, Short Barreled Rifles | Comments Off on The ATF has issued an open letter on the stabilizing brace issue