Blanket denials of Form 1 suppressers.

[5pins]

Several people on different forums have reported getting denial letters from the ATF for their Form 1 application for making a silencer. The reason for the rejections is.

85311

It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with solvent traps because the people submitting the applications are not tell the ATF that they are making them out of solvent traps.
I submitted my latest form 1 on the 11th of Feb and have not heard anything on it yet.

[23JAZ]

Several people on different forums have reported getting denial letters from the ATF for their Form 1 application for making a silencer. The reason for the rejections is.

85311

It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with solvent traps because the people submitting the applications are not tell the ATF that they are making them out of solvent traps.
I submitted my latest form 1 on the 11th of Feb and have not heard anything on it yet.

It’s a blanket denial of all form 1 solvent traps from what I have read. The ATF is saying the trap without the hole is already a silencer. Some one claiming to be the owner of Quite Bore posted something on the Reddit NFA group about it.

[5pins]

It’s a blanket denial of all form 1 solvent traps from what I have read. The ATF is saying the trap without the hole is already a silencer. Some one claiming to be the owner of Quite Bore posted something on the Reddit NFA group about it.

Yes the ATF is coming down on banning solvent traps, but when you submit a form 1 the ATF doesn't know if you are making it out of a solvent trap or not. There is no way they could unless you tell them in the application. Plus not all solvent traps are automatically considered a suppressor. If the trap is able to be used to catch solvent and the end cap is not dimpled to guide a drill then it is not consisted a suppressor.

[ccmdfd]

This guy says it apparently depends on who your agent is


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PviIL8R41Nw&t=309s

In some of his prior videos he basically says what was posted above; the ATF considers the solvent traps to already be suppressors and they should have been form 4'd, not 1.

[5pins]

This guy says it apparently depends on who your agent is


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PviIL8R41Nw&t=309s

In some of his prior videos he basically says what was posted above; the ATF considers the solvent traps to already be suppressors and they should have been form 4'd, not 1.

That has apparently changed, and they all need to be turned in.

https://blog.princelaw.com/2022/02/28/update-on-diversified-machine-products/

[littlejerry]

What in the actual F?

How can they not expect a legal challenge?

"We decided that thing that we approved and you registered is no longer legal. Destroy it or else"

[5pins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsGR_ZtfuTs

[CleverNickname]

What in the actual F?

How can they not expect a legal challenge?

"We decided that thing that we approved and you registered is no longer legal. Destroy it or else"

The ATF position will be that the item was already legally a silencer when it was supposedly registered, and therefore the item was contraband at that time. You can't make contraband into not-contraband by registering it.

You can't register an unregistered firearm that already exists. Not even a C2 SOT can do that. LE agencies can, but the NFA firearm is limited to being possessed by governmental entities only.

[joshs]

ATF claims that they are only denying forms where they can identify that the silencer to be "made" was from a kit that (in ATF's view) was already a "silencer" under federal law. It seems that several of the people with denied forms are contesting that claim because they intended to make their silencer from raw materials instead of an alleged "kit."

[HeavyDuty]

So, I guess the “approved” way to utilize building aids would be to form 1 the build and then acquire the materials only after the stamp comes through? That sounds risky, what happens if the supplier goes TU during the process?

[whomever]

... raw materials...

There are going to be parallel issues this summer when the ATF puts new '80%' rules into effect (and states, e.g. WA, are doing similar things), Some of the proposed definitions of when something becomes a firearm are pretty far up stream, even as far as anything has been done that makes it not just a commodity item.

So, is a raw forging a 'firearm'? Step 1 of the process has certainly been done. But what about these:


https://www.80percentarms.com/products/0-billet-ar-15-lower-receiver/

4.5x1.5 might be a stock size, but when you cut it to 8 inches *for the purpose of making an AR lower*, is that step 1 as well? Is the only safe way to buy a stock size, say 5x1.5x12 and cut it down?

[joshs]

There are going to be parallel issues this summer when the ATF puts new '80%' rules into effect (and states, e.g. WA, are doing similar things), Some of the proposed definitions of when something becomes a firearm are pretty far up stream, even as far as anything has been done that makes it not just a commodity item.

So, is a raw forging a 'firearm'? Step 1 of the process has certainly been done. But what about these:


https://www.80percentarms.com/products/0-billet-ar-15-lower-receiver/

4.5x1.5 might be a stock size, but when you cut it to 8 inches *for the purpose of making an AR lower*, is that step 1 as well? Is the only safe way to buy a stock size, say 5x1.5x12 and cut it down?

No doubt. I've repeatedly pointed out that many of the bills targeting 80% receivers could extend all the way to aluminum that Beretta orders from Alcoa. Since Alcoa knows that material will be used in the creation of firearms, it would be covered by many of the bills we've looked at that attempt to move the existing (not so bright line) rule regarding when a product becomes a "firearm."

[littlejerry]

This is one hell of a rabbit hole on Form 1s. The ATF isn't providing any guidance on what parts or materials are allowed for fabrication.

Using the new logic we should all be filing Form 4s when we buy a new mount adapter or DT adapter, or even a threaded muzzle device that receives a suppressor.

[5pins]

I got this in an email this morning from the AFT.

I guess they realized they can't just reject every application on the assumption that the applicant was using a solvent trap.


Dear eForm 1 applicant,
The National Firearms Act (NFA) Division received your ATF eForm 1, Application to Make and Register a Firearm. As a part of the application process, NFA Division must confirm that the making or possession of a firearm would not place the applicant in violation of law.[1]
NFA Division requests that you provide certain additional information so that it may determine whether your eForm 1 application to make a silencer may lawfully be approved. Specifically, please submit to NFA Division the following:


Pictures of the parts that you will use to make the silencer (the pictures should be clear and allow the identification of the parts photographed),
A description of the processes you will use to assemble or fabricate the silencer,
The product, model, or kit name, if any, of each device and/or part that you will use to make the silencer, and
The source from which the parts were obtained, i.e., the name of the store, website, etc.

The additional information may be submitted to NFA Division at the following email address: FORM1Silencerquestions@atf.gov. Please include the form Permit Control Number or eForm ID in the Subject bar for each correspondence with attachments. The additional information may also be sent by mail to:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

[whomever]

I got this in an email this morning from the AFT. :

"...
Pictures of the parts that you will use to make the silencer (the pictures should be clear and allow the identification of the parts photographed),
A description of the processes you will use to assemble or fabricate the silencer,
The product, model, or kit name, if any, of each device and/or part that you will use to make the silencer, and
The source from which the parts were obtained, i.e., the name of the store, website, etc.
..."



I wonder what they do if you truthfully answer 'I will machine it from bar stock that I have not yet purchased'.

[wmu12071]

I got this in an email this morning from the AFT.

I guess they realized they can't just reject every application on the assumption that the applicant was using a solvent trap.

I read "Please provide pictures so that we can decide you have already committed a felony or change our definition to make what you are trying to do also a felony."

[rewster]

I wonder what they do if you truthfully answer 'I will machine it from bar stock that I have not yet purchased'.

Hey guys. Found this thread after receiving my "additional information required" email from batf. Letter received yesterday, I responded this morning. I'm a bored engineer with some cnc equipment in the home shop, so my can will be built from raw barstock. I responded with thumbnail photos of the material that I plan to order, hopefully distancing myself from the dragnet of kit builders. We'll see what happens - I'll update here when there's movement.

[ccmdfd]

A little more info, especially the quoted footnote.


https://youtu.be/cCYrByWCvRg

[5pins]

https://americansuppressorassociation.com/atf-form-1-update-take-action-now/

[LittleLebowski]

This is such fucking bullshit.

[JRB]

I feel like this is a smaller scale test run for how the ATF's about to define receivers and go after 80% builds/parts kit builds.

Which is somewhere between scary and terrifying when you consider the possible second and third order effects.