|
|
|
It is currently Mon May 13, 2024 1:36 am
|
Forum rules
Discussion or advice on how to create an Illegal NFA item will result in an immediate ban. No advice given within should replace user due diligence. Always consult a lawyer / professional.
What the hell - SBR Form 1 Rejected
Author |
Message |
Benja455
Site Supporter
Location: White Center Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 Posts: 6489
|
Holy shit...and now the site is completely down, so I can't check to see if I got rejected too (even though I only submitted it a couple of weeks ago).
|
Thu May 28, 2015 12:04 am |
|
|
lamrith
Site Supporter
Location: Tacoma/Puyallup Joined: Tue May 8, 2012 Posts: 4340
Real Name: Larry
|
My agent was TC as well. got declined.
Let us know what some of you hear on the phone calls, I cannot call before I go to work but this just ruined my day completely.
_________________Talons wrote: it's too plastic, even for me. it's like old, overworked, plastic everywhere old pornwhore amounts of plastic.
|
Thu May 28, 2015 4:20 am |
|
|
tannardog
Site Supporter
Location: Monroe Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2011 Posts: 1563
Real Name: Ty
|
Damn, my stamp was issued Sunday, May 24th by none other than Ted Clutter. The Ted is unmistakable, the last name looks like a C-L_????. No matter what it is, this sucks balls. I am one paycheck away from submitting another, but I think I will hold off. I wonder if our AG issued the states opinion (quietly) and the feds shut the door on us? Maybe RanB or Dogfish have heard something?
|
Thu May 28, 2015 5:17 am |
|
|
Mediumrarechicken
Location: Puyallup Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 Posts: 9065
Real Name: Richard Fitzwelliner
|
So when I email them should I mention that I'm doing a 5320.20 or whatever form it's called for out of state travel and that if be finishing it at that time? Or is that grey area stuff not to mention?
_________________ If she sits on your face and you can still hear, SHE'S NOT FAT.
I'm going to type out 3 paragraphs and wax eloquently about a similar story in my life. Pm me if you figured it out.
|
Thu May 28, 2015 5:42 am |
|
|
robot
Site Supporter
Location: Duvall, WA Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 Posts: 1063
Real Name: Loke
|
Same rejection letter / reason last night by the same TEC. sigh.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
|
Thu May 28, 2015 5:48 am |
|
|
TimmyF
Location: Redmond Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 Posts: 20
|
Just called they it looks like his phone is going directly to voice mail. What's the right next step? Resubmit?
-Joel
|
Thu May 28, 2015 6:22 am |
|
|
rstrobel
Location: Edmonds Joined: Fri Jun 7, 2013 Posts: 288
|
Mediumrarechicken wrote: So when I email them should I mention that I'm doing a 5320.20 or whatever form it's called for out of state travel and that if be finishing it at that time? Or is that grey area stuff not to mention? I wouldn't mention that yet, wait and see what his explanation is for these denials first. It looks like he's out of the office today, of course...
|
Thu May 28, 2015 6:23 am |
|
|
lunacite
Site Supporter
Location: Snohomish County Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 Posts: 1146
|
chipster wrote: rstrobel wrote: Ted Clutter disapproved my form. Same for everyone else? Yes, from what I see on ARFCOM and here, it seems like he did a bulk disapprove of WA F1 SBR's this evening. Anyone get a call from a 7777 number about the same time? I have a missed call from 7777 as well....my form was approved in march.....
|
Thu May 28, 2015 6:39 am |
|
|
ANZAC
Site Supporter
Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7251
|
For the slow people (me) --- a form 1 is for making an NFA item, and you were making SBRs? I thought that was still illegal in WA because manufacturing was omitted from the SBR bill?
I understand and agree that the feds should mind their own business, but how were you planning to comply with state law? Finish the build outside of WA?
(I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just trying to catch up on what is going on)
|
Thu May 28, 2015 7:13 am |
|
|
Guns4Liberty
Site Supporter
Location: Lynnwood/Bothell Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 Posts: 8579
Real Name: Curtis
|
ANZAC wrote: For the slow people (me) --- a form 1 is for making an NFA item, and you were making SBRs? I thought that was still illegal in WA because manufacturing was omitted from the SBR bill?
I understand and agree that the feds should mind their own business, but how were you planning to comply with state law? Finish the build outside of WA?
(I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just trying to catch up on what is going on) Subsection 1 of RCW 9.41.190 clearly states that the manufacture of a SBR is unlawful. So if you stopped reading there, then yes, making an SBR via a Form 1 would appear to still be illegal under the RCW. But if you continue reading, Subsection 2 clearly states that it is not unlawful to acquire an SBR in accordance with federal law. Because acquiring an SBR via your own build on an approved Form 1 is in accordance with federal law, there should be no issue with compliance with the RCW. What is clear, however, is that Subsection 1 and Subsection 2 are in conflict with one another insofar as the acquisition of an SBR is concerned. Subsection 2 should have explicitly included "manufacture" in addition to possess, transport, acquire, and transfer. That, and Subsection 1 should have been amended to exclude SBRs, so that it is left to deal only with SBSs and MGs, thereby leaving SBRs to Subsection 2. EDIT: In other words, the SBR bill that passed was sloppily crafted, and as a result LE has the ability to selectively apply certain provisions in the RCW. FYI, I (and others) saw this coming: http://waguns.org/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=51187. Link to RCW: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9.41.190
|
Thu May 28, 2015 7:25 am |
|
|
ANZAC
Site Supporter
Location: 12 Acres in Eastern WA Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 Posts: 7251
|
Guns4Liberty wrote: Subsection 1 of RCW 9.41.190 clearly states that the manufacture of a SBR is unlawful. So if you stopped reading there, then yes, making an SBR via a Form 1 would appear to still be illegal under the RCW. But if you continue reading, Subsection 2 clearly states that it is not unlawful to acquire an SBR in accordance with federal law. Because acquiring an SBR via your own build on an approved Form 1 is in accordance with federal law, there should be no issue with compliance with the RCW. Thanks for the explanation. By "acquiring" and "own build", you mean acquiring a lower and then building an SBR from it? So the ATF is coming up with their own interpretation of WA's "manufacture" definition? (edit) just noticed section 1 also mentions "or to assemble or repair any machine gun, short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle." Quote: What is clear, however, is that Subsection 1 and Subsection 2 are in conflict with one another insofar as the acquisition of an SBR is concerned. Subsection 2 should have explicitly included "manufacture" in addition to possess, transport, acquire, and transfer. That, and Subsection 1 should have been amended to exclude SBRs, so that it is left to deal only with SBSs and MGs, thereby leaving SBRs to Subsection 2. Yep, noticed that when I read it when it was first passed. Unfortunate.
Last edited by ANZAC on Thu May 28, 2015 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
Thu May 28, 2015 7:32 am |
|
|
TheVen
Location: TC Joined: Thu May 28, 2015 Posts: 37
|
Just gave them a call. Ted is out of the office, like previously mentioned. The receptionist told me to just call back tomorrow for Ted, I suggest we all do the same. The number is 304-616-4500
|
Thu May 28, 2015 7:36 am |
|
|
Guns4Liberty
Site Supporter
Location: Lynnwood/Bothell Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2014 Posts: 8579
Real Name: Curtis
|
ANZAC wrote: By "acquiring" and "own build", you mean acquiring a lower and then building an SBR from it? So the ATF is coming up with their own interpretation of WA's "manufacture" definition? Precisely...although I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the state AG quietly provided an opinion to DOJ, and that's why BATFE is now reversing course on Form 1 applications.
|
Thu May 28, 2015 7:37 am |
|
|
rstrobel
Location: Edmonds Joined: Fri Jun 7, 2013 Posts: 288
|
I suspect that we have been burned by another stupid request for an opinion letter from the ATF, similar to the sig brace situation... If you ask them enough times whether it's illegal or not and point out flaws in the law, eventually they're going to say yes. I'm assuming that other agents won't be able to tell us why Ted Clutter rejected our forms, right? What a joke... I have two SLR-104URs that are not of any use to me in their current configuration...
|
Thu May 28, 2015 7:44 am |
|
|
Benja455
Site Supporter
Location: White Center Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2011 Posts: 6489
|
ANZAC wrote: For the slow people (me) --- a form 1 is for making an NFA item, and you were making SBRs? I thought that was still illegal in WA because manufacturing was omitted from the SBR bill?
I understand and agree that the feds should mind their own business, but how were you planning to comply with state law? Finish the build outside of WA?
(I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just trying to catch up on what is going on) The ATF also has a VERY specific definition for words like "make" and "maker" vs "manufacturer." Filing a Form 1 deems you a "maker" not a "manufacturer." Therefore anyone in WA filing a Form 1 was not violating the law. That is why these rejections are horse shit. By the way - my Form 1 wasn't rejected...it's still pending. It was submitted 5/10/15.
|
Thu May 28, 2015 7:46 am |
|
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|