More Form News From ATF

[ExecDirector]

This just in from ATF... Another step into modern times!

We're Updating Our eForms Systems

On Wednesday, July 31st, starting at 6:00 PM, ATF’s eForms systems will be undergoing maintenance as part of an ongoing process to enhance our services. During this time, eForms will not be available. These systems are expected to return to full service by 2:00 AM on Thursday, August 1, 2013.

The enhancements to the system will be as follows:

The eForm 6A has been modified to display the “Number and Kind of Package Information” on a separate overflow page. “See overflow page for number and kind of packages” will be displayed in block 9(b) of the form and descriptive information that would normally be displayed in block 9(b) will be displayed on the overflow page. This change was made at the request of industry members who discovered that there was not enough room on the form to put all the information that was necessary in that block. This is another example of where we were able to make a change based on your recommendation.

NFA eForms are finally here!!!! ATF is pleased to announce the implementation of the NFA forms into ATF’s eForms system. ATF Forms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 10 are currently available for eForms submission.

The submission of Forms 2, 3, 4, 5 and 9 can only be done by a Federal firearms licensee who has paid the special (occupational) tax for the current Tax Year.

If the submission of the form requires fingerprints, photographs, and the Law Enforcement Certification, the submission cannot be done using eForms – the application must be submitted on paper to the NFA Branch. Accordingly, Forms 1, 4 and 5 may be submitted using eForms if the applicant maker or transferee is a legal entity, such as a corporation, trust, or LLC. The submission of the application will require that the documents establishing the legal entity be attached electronically to the application.

For Forms 1 or 4 that are submitted with making or transfer tax due, the tax payment will be made through Pay.Gov, just prior to the submission of the application. Pay.Gov is a system, of the US Treasury’s Financial Management, that allows the submitter to pay the tax by credit/debit card or from a bank account. For detailed information on Pay.gov you can visit their website at www.pay.gov.

[sillycon]

Is there any further word as to the addition of fingerprint requirements for officers/trustees of corp/trust transfers? Hopefully that does not happen, but it seems as though it is a likely "poison pill".

The irony here could be that if/when CLEO goes away, we may find that ALL form submissions require fingerprints and so the eForm system will be pointless.

[ExecDirector]

Nothing at this point. That was part of a notice that is precursor to even an NPRM... so no real traction at this time.

[RenegadeConservative]

The irony here could be that if/when CLEO goes away, we may find that ALL form submissions require fingerprints and so the eForm system will be pointless.

The logical thing to do would be to allow electronic form submissions and make it so that any information which could not be submitted electronically could be sent in via hard copy.

Too bad the government isn't logical most of the time.

[sillycon]

The reconciliation of hard paper to e-paper is a nightmare; private companies spend millions (if not billions) every year to do just that.

Expecting the government to be successful and efficient at something like that is akin to expecting smurfs to pop out of your blueberry corn flakes tomorrow morning.

[jason8844]

The reconciliation of hard paper to e-paper is a nightmare; private companies spend millions (if not billions) every year to do just that.

Expecting the government to be successful and efficient at something like that is akin to expecting smurfs to pop out of your blueberry corn flakes tomorrow morning.


I am not a conspiracy nut, but I do think there are higher ups at the ATF and in the administration who want the gears of the NFA as gummed up as possible. All under the guise of "compliance and safety" of course. I am under no illusions that the current director is very anti 2nd amendment and the idea of civilians in possession of title ii weapons keeps him up at night.

[ExecDirector]

It's not perfect, but the online processing of eForms is live. Although instructions on how to use it were a little kludgy, here's a simplified set:

You need to go here https://www.atfonline.gov/EForms/ and register. Once your registration is accepted, you will need to associate your FFL(s) with your account. You do that by following these instructions: The FFL Number association is done by clicking on the “My Profile” Tab. Then click on the FFL/AECA/EIN button, enter the first three and the last five digits of your FFL number in the FFL Number field and submit the request. You will have to indicate if you will be submitting forms as the Super user (who must be listed as a responsible person on the FFL), or a Delegate, or a Submitter. There must be one and only one Super User for each FFL. You may request to be associated with multiple FFL Numbers. You will receive notification when your request is approved and then the FFL number (s) will be available for selection from the drop down on the “Applicant Page” of the form. It will take a bit for you to receive the approval notice.

After that, you can click on the main page after log in and select your forms for populating. Go slowly as there are sometimes connectivity issues and you need to actually see the field populate before you move on.

NFA Branch HAS CONFIRMED that eForms submissions WILL take priority over regular paper submissions. Improved turnarounds will be significant.

[jason8844]

So with the eForms taking priority, does that mean us plebeians who have to do Form 1s and 4s as individuals (requiring paper submission) will get pushed even further back in the pending queue? Thus adding even more months to our waits?

[ExecDirector]

Yes, individuals will still have to do paper forms, though ATF is working on providing that functionality via eForms, too. The wait should not increase because NFA Branch is actually adding bodies. Please see the other post in House News.

[jason8844]

I saw on NFA tracker today that after only 4 months the first people who submitted forms electronically are getting their stamps. Needless to say, I am jealous! But I am happy to see some part of this system getting modernized!

[ddnc]

If not mistaken, those are form 1's not form 4's. Those will still be delivered on the 12th of never. Whether F1 or F4 you should be approved in queue.

[jason8844]

If not mistaken, those are form 1's not form 4's. Those will still be delivered on the 12th of never. Whether F1 or F4 you should be approved in queue.

Here is the item report. Form 1, eFiled...

http://www.nfatracker.com/Default.aspx?transferid=04ec898a-5f09-4296-a9ad-6fee0bc86f59

[ddnc]

This is totally crap. So the 4, E forms I submitted in Sept will be approved before the 2 I sent 11 months ago??????
Oh and in addition his stamp was E-mailed to him on a PDF file. All e-forms stamps will be sent this way. Seems kind of iffy. I would like a real stamp because the forgery issue comes up, no?

[jason8844]

This is totally crap. So the 4, E forms I submitted in Sept will be approved before the 2 I sent 11 months ago??????
Oh and in addition his stamp was E-mailed to him on a PDF file. All e-forms stamps will be sent this way. Seems kind of iffy. I would like a real stamp because the forgery issue comes up, no?

You will have to ask others "in the know" how the stamp is sent. Without hardcopies, how else will they send a stamp? I am not a lawyer and all my forms are as individuals so I can not give any insight. I can only post what I find and discover.

[ddnc]

You will have to ask others "in the know" how the stamp is sent. Without hardcopies, how else will they send a stamp? I am not a lawyer and all my forms are as individuals so I can not give any insight. I can only post what I find and discover.
OK, a dude in TEXAS just got his F1, e-form stamp back, filed in Aug. Dana pickles is the examiner. Evidently he is doing the e-forms in Tx. If this is de rigueur this is good news and I should have all my stamps in by X-mas.
Looks like the e form stamps will come by email.

[ExecDirector]

NFA Branch has stated, in writing, that eForm applications will absolutely receive preferential handling (as opposed to written or faxed, where applicable). As long as ATF recognizes the validity of the "eStamp," I'm good. I support all functional efforts to speed things up.

[jason8844]

NFA Branch has stated, in writing, that eForm applications will absolutely receive preferential handling (as opposed to written or faxed, where applicable). As long as ATF recognizes the validity of the "eStamp," I'm good. I support all functional efforts to speed things up.

I think it is great too. But I do not think it is fair that they receive special handling. Especially when others do not have the ability to e-File applications. So the more efiled applications they get, they keep getting put ahead of my snail mailed Forms. This could mean that they never get to my forms if the efiled forms flow in faster than they can be examined.

[ddnc]

I think it is great too. But I do not think it is fair that they receive special handling. Especially when others do not have the ability to e-File applications.
You don't have access to E-filing or are you speaking generically? Although this will only be available to dealers very soon I wish they had done this along time ago. If the 3 month e-form turnaround is GTG my last 5 stamps should be in hand just after the discussion/rebuttal period closes. Fortunately my last snail mails were sent almost last year and should be approved this week. (fingers crossed although I'll probably be disappointed.)

[jason8844]

You don't have access to E-filing or are you speaking generically? Although this will only be available to dealers very soon I wish they had done this along time ago. If the 3 month e-form turnaround is GTG my last 5 stamps should be in hand just after the discussion/rebuttal period closes. Fortunately my last snail mails were sent almost last year and should be approved this week. (fingers crossed although I'll probably be disappointed.)

I do all my Forms as an individual. Because I need CLEO sign-off, fingerprint cards and passport photos for each form, I must go snail mail. I already have too many stamps and too many in process to start going the trust route. Plus with the trust route under scrutiny, I would not go that way right now if I could.

[ExecDirector]

The plan is to eventually have an eForms system that can be accessible by all forms. For now, they are releasing the system in module stages. Frankly, the roll out has been anything but smooth. Fits and starts, scaling issues, etc. It wasn't really quite ready for prime time.

As for preferential treatment, nothing really has changed that much. Forms with attachments (fingerprints, photos, trust docs, etc.) have always taken a back seat to Forms without: Form 3's, Form 5's, etc. That hasn't changed. A very few individual forms have been added to the preference list at this point. The reason for preference on the new system is often missed by folks who are griping about long waits...

The eForms system is driven by database population. Each user of the system is signed up through a vetting process to make sure that they are capable of accessing correctly. And each form can only be populated with information that exists in the NFRTR that has already been assigned. You cannot screw up the name, type, model number, caliber, etc. You can only put on the form what is in the database... no hand writing. This saves a ton of time for NFA Branch because they can eliminate a whole huge step of the process.

The reason for the current delays is simple: There are LOTS more folks submitting applications for LOTS more weapons. The rate has grown exponentially over the past three years. And while NFA Branch is bringing on more resources (slowly), those resources have to be intensely trained before they can even think about them being productive. Add to the fact that talented folks who have been doing this for awhile may not want to be doing this for the rest of their lives...

[jason8844]

The reason for the current delays is simple: There are LOTS more folks submitting applications for LOTS more weapons. The rate has grown exponentially over the past three years.


Regardless of wait time. This is a great thing. It means more people are exercising their Constitutional rights and in the end does a few things...

1. More people using the NFA system means it is less likely they (anti-gunners) could shut it down.
2. More weapons means it is harder to confiscate and track them all down in a anti-gunners wet dream utopia.
3. It just ticks anti-gunners off knowing more people have silencers, SBRs and still have MGs!

[ExecDirector]

3. It just ticks anti-gunners off knowing more people have silencers, SBRs and still have MGs!

And DD's. Don't forget the DD's!

[jason8844]

And DD's. Don't forget the DD's!

I agree. There is nothing like Double D's.... oh wait, you mean Destructive Devices. I like those too. :D

[RenegadeConservative]

Regardless of wait time. This is a great thing. It means more people are exercising their Constitutional rights and in the end does a few things...

1. More people using the NFA system means it is less likely they (anti-gunners) could shut it down.
2. More weapons means it is harder to confiscate and track them all down in a anti-gunners wet dream utopia.
3. It just ticks anti-gunners off knowing more people have silencers, SBRs and still have MGs!

And...

4. More people with NFA items potentially means more support for reforming the system - in a good way.

[sillycon]

Honestly, I think the best thing that could happen at this point is that the popularity of NFA completely overwhelms the NFA branch and causes an utter and complete collapse of the system as it stands. Wait times in the multiple year range, etc.

I think at that point there would be enough fuel to build a fire to start chipping away towards a repeal of NFA.

That said, with 922(o) on the books we're still screwed on MG's even if the NFA went away.

[jason8844]

And here we go with the legal snafu w/ the electronic stamps...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/11/foghorn/atfs-new-online-eforms-might-legal/

[ExecDirector]

That appears to be one lawyer, Mr. Prince, offering an opinion on the subject. I have spoken with ATF and their counsel's opinion is that the new stamps are quite valid. Just like printing postage directly onto an envelope with your desktop printer is valid. In the end, I'm certain that Mr. Prince would be happy to represent you should you decide that your stamp is not valid.

ATF has confirmed to us that they have no intention of issuing "alternate" documents because the issued ones are valid.

[jason8844]

That appears to be one lawyer, Mr. Prince, offering an opinion on the subject. I have spoken with ATF and their counsel's opinion is that the new stamps are quite valid. Just like printing postage directly onto an envelope with your desktop printer is valid. In the end, I'm certain that Mr. Prince would be happy to represent you should you decide that your stamp is not valid.

ATF has confirmed to us that they have no intention of issuing "alternate" documents because the issued ones are valid.

I understand, but in a world where an administration can Willy-nilly choose what laws to enforce and what laws to ignore I think it makes me leary.

I am a law abiding citizen and always want to remain in compliance. Just like my Hk 94 clone I am going to build when my stamp gets back. It will be 922r compliant, even though some legal "experts" claim 922r does not apply to NFA. Bottom line, I do not take chances and while I fight to change the laws, I abide by them while in place.

So that brings me to my main concerns...

1. That eForm and stamp would be super easy to forge and it would only take one criminal to do it and we all get hurt by the legislative backlash.

2. What will uninformed LEOs do or say when they ask for your proof of registration and you show them a printed off form with a translucent NFA stamp? Sure it will get sorted out when they call the NFA branch and verify my registration, but I would rather not have it done at the police station after they arrest me.

[ExecDirector]

I have never had to show anything other than a Xerox copy of my Forms and have never had a problem. I also recommend to all of my customers that they keep the original locked up in a safety deposit box and to never use anything but a copy when toting around their guns. None of my customers have ever had a problem. Frankly, I'm not certain that there are too many local LEO's that would really be able to determine the validity of a real stamp given all of the changes they have had over the years.

My opinion, this is a non issue.

As for 922(r) it only applies when the item is being made or assembled. It does not apply to mere possession. If you are the one making/assembling the thing, 922(r) absolutely pertains to you. The so called expert opinions on 922(r) not applying to NFA are just plain wrong. They have incomplete citations of ATF letters without the original questions. Makes a big difference!

[ddnc]

.......As for 922(r) it only applies when the item is being made or assembled. It does not apply to mere possession. If you are the one making/assembling the thing, 922(r) absolutely pertains to you.!
Making/assembling? Almost all NFA guns when modified to be shoulder fired consists of a.) removing several inches from the barrel and or, b.) simply applying a butt stock as is done in any transformation from pistol to rifle. MG's are exempt
The base platform has already been made or assembled realistically. Does the addition of a stock no different than adding any other external feature or taking a hacksaw to a barrel constitute "making/assembling" and furthermore, if someone else other than the stamp recipient applied the stock and you are only "in possession" what then?
I think this is where the 922r doesn't apply argument originates from. I trust ATF as much as the liar in chief which translates to zero so I have subbed US parts on all applicable NFA weps. Idiotic law.

[ExecDirector]

Making or assembling is just that. The part that people stumble upon is the letter regarding shortening the barrel of an AK variant. Many keyboard kommandos interpreted that to mean that making an SBR/NFA weapon exempted you from 922(r). What was left out was the question that was asked to generate the response. The question that was asked was along the lines of "if all I am doing is shortening the barrel of an otherwise lawfully imported weapon, does 922(r) apply?" ATF held that just shortening the barrel does not constitute an act of making or assembly. Changing out components absolutely would, though. Just shorten the barrel, no problem. Swap out the butt stock, problem.

And to say it again... there is no possession offense listed in 922(r). If you bought it that way, you did not make or assemble it.

[jason8844]

Making or assembling is just that. The part that people stumble upon is the letter regarding shortening the barrel of an AK variant. Many keyboard kommandos interpreted that to mean that making an SBR/NFA weapon exempted you from 922(r). What was left out was the question that was asked to generate the response. The question that was asked was along the lines of "if all I am doing is shortening the barrel of an otherwise lawfully imported weapon, does 922(r) apply?" ATF held that just shortening the barrel does not constitute an act of making or assembly. Changing out components absolutely would, though. Just shorten the barrel, no problem. Swap out the butt stock, problem.

And to say it again... there is no possession offense listed in 922(r). If you bought it that way, you did not make or assemble it.

That is odd. I thought that the confusion originated with the legal definition of "sporting" in the 922r language.

_______________
Sec. 178.39 Assembly of semiautomatic rifles or shotguns.

(a) No person shall assemble a semiautomatic rifle or any shotgun using more than 10 of the imported parts listed in paragraph (c) of this section if the assembled firearm is prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3) as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.
______________

I am pretty sure the arguments deal with the 34' NFA, 68' CGA and the 39' SCOTUS Case U.S. v. Miller seem to uphold that a NFA weapon is not designed for "sporting" use by definition and why it gives them legal authority to regulate them so heavily. Therefor if they are not for "sporting" use, they do not fall under the pervue of 922r.

[ExecDirector]

Nope... The crux of "NFA trumps 922(r)" belief is the AK letter that I mentioned. That belief is incorrect. NFA does not trump. SBRs/SBSs absolutely are subject to 922(r) unless all you are doing is shortening the barrel.

Your take is missing a key element: "prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3)" [emphasis added] "as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." If it fails the sporting purpose test, it cannot be imported and that is what 922(r) sought to prevent: foreign weapons that could not be imported under a silly jihad that Congress cooked up and foreign companies or persons making an end run by assembling such weapons here. Basically, a protectionist scheme that serves no real purpose.

ATF had to resolve a conflict between the fact that NFA weapons, which are not illegal under Federal law to own, could in fact be made, even though, by definition, doing so would render said weapon unimportable because it does not meet the sporting purpose test. Yet a base gun, such as an HK USC, certainly is importable! So... They will let you cut the barrel ("assembly by reduction?") and turn it into an SBR with no issue. If you swap out parts, you are afoul of 922(r).

And while there are 922(r) prosecutions and convictions, it is not a lead charge because it is nearly impossible to prove. It's a bolt on offense for folks that are doing a lot of other really bad stuff at the same time.

[jason8844]

Nope... The crux of "NFA trumps 922(r)" belief is the AK letter that I mentioned. That belief is incorrect. NFA does not trump. SBRs/SBSs absolutely are subject to 922(r) unless all you are doing is shortening the barrel.

Your take is missing a key element: "prohibited from importation under section 925(d)(3)" [emphasis added] "as not being particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes." If it fails the sporting purpose test, it cannot be imported and that is what 922(r) sought to prevent: foreign weapons that could not be imported under a silly jihad that Congress cooked up and foreign companies or persons making an end run by assembling such weapons here. Basically, a protectionist scheme that serves no real purpose.

ATF had to resolve a conflict between the fact that NFA weapons, which are not illegal under Federal law to own, could in fact be made, even though, by definition, doing so would render said weapon unimportable because it does not meet the sporting purpose test. Yet a base gun, such as an HK USC, certainly is importable! So... They will let you cut the barrel ("assembly by reduction?") and turn it into an SBR with no issue. If you swap out parts, you are afoul of 922(r).

And while there are 922(r) prosecutions and convictions, it is not a lead charge because it is nearly impossible to prove. It's a bolt on offense for folks that are doing a lot of other really bad stuff at the same time.

I appreciate your insight. I do not even like to get near the grey area of the law and all my guns are 922r compliant whether they are NFA or not. Thank you for explaining it in a simple way and I hope it helps other potentially stay out of any trouble.