ATF Discontinuance of Accessory Classifications

[Pat Riot]

WELL Over a year ago I submitted a question to the ATF regarding the Mossberg Shockwave and building one from my own receiver. At the time I signed up for their weekly e-Newsletter. I guess they finally got around to adding me to their list...

No, I never did build it.

Anyway, I thought my very first, and why do I think it will be my only, newsletter from the ATF, might be of interest here.

PS: I am posting this as information only. I got no dog in this fight. I am just a citizen, not a manufacturer, not a member of law enforcement nor do I play one on TV.

Just like all cryptic messages and letters from the ATF I have a feeling this might be bump stock related, but who knows?...

Yes, they sent it twice in one email...



Effective Immediately: Discontinuance of Accessory Classifications
12/10/2018
View it as a Web page.


e-ATF Web Updates

Discontinuance of Accessory Classifications
Effective Immediately:
The Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch (FTISB) classifies firearms as defined by the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA) based on the configuration and the design features of the firearm as submitted by members of the industry.

Effective immediately, any requests for a determination on how an accessory affects the classification of a firearm under the GCA or NFA must include a firearm with the accessory already installed. Except in cases of conditional import determinations, FTISB will not issue a determination on an accessory unless it is attached to the submitted firearm.

If you have previously submitted a sample accessory for classification, FTISB will be returning your sample without classification. FTISB will contact you in the near future with further instructions to facilitate the return of your sample.



ATF Resources

• Website: www.atf.gov
• Open Data: https://data.atf.gov/
• Social Media: https://www.atf.gov/news/social-media

Contact Us

• Submit Technical Website Question or Issue
• Order Forms
• Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT)
• Submit an Alcohol and Tobacco Diversion Inquiry
• Alcohol & Tobacco Permits
• Freedom of Information Act

For Web Updates:
You are receiving this email because you opted to subscribe to e-ATF Web Updates. Web Updates emails will alert you to updates to the ATF website (www.atf.gov) and social media news updates. To see other subscription options please visit the ATF GovDelivery subscription page.

Effective Immediately: Discontinuance of Accessory Classifications
12/10/2018
View it as a Web page.


e-ATF FYI

Discontinuance of Accessory Classifications
Effective Immediately:
The Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch (FTISB) classifies firearms as defined by the Gun Control Act (GCA) and National Firearms Act (NFA) based on the configuration and the design features of the firearm as submitted by members of the industry.


Effective immediately, any requests for a determination on how an accessory affects the classification of a firearm under the GCA or NFA must include a firearm with the accessory already installed. Except in cases of conditional import determinations, FTISB will not issue a determination on an accessory unless it is attached to the submitted firearm.

If you have previously submitted a sample accessory for classification, FTISB will be returning your sample without classification. FTISB will contact you in the near future with further instructions to facilitate the return of your sample.



ATF Resources

• Website: www.atf.gov
• Open Data: https://data.atf.gov/
• Social Media: https://www.atf.gov/news/social-media

Contact Us

• Submit Technical Website Question or Issue
• Order Forms
• Gang Resistance Education and Training (GREAT)
• Submit an Alcohol and Tobacco Diversion Inquiry
• Alcohol & Tobacco Permits
• Freedom of Information Act

For FYI:
You are receiving this email because you opted to subscribe to e-ATF FYI Updates. FYI updates emails will provide a monthly digest consisting of ATF announcements, resources, campaign updates and notifications of other developments in ATF’s research, services, programs, and policies. To see other subscription options please visit the ATF GovDelivery subscription page.

Stay Connected with The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives:

SUBSCRIBER SERVICES:
Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe All | Help
This email was sent to (EDIT) using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives · 99 New York Ave NE · Washington, DC 20226 · 800-439-1420

 

[SilentStalker]

Um, so they are asking you to become a felon and then send them the evidence? Buahahaha. Sorry but that’s how I read this. Doesn’t seem very smart on their part, or maybe it is depending on how you look at it. Who will be the first test dummie?

 

[WestKentucky]

Well, I believe that what I read actually makes a little sense. It would be hard to judge an accessory off of the weapon, especially if it is not something that is already somewhat known in the industry. Bump stock would seem like a really crappy shoulder stock and might pass as such but without testing on a rifle then it would be hard to understand that it would aid in mimicking full auto fire.

I personally tend to lean to the side of closing loopholes rather than exploiting them, so in the case of bump stocks I see this as a benefit for the masses and govt agency as well. It could easily come to a point to where the law says full auto fire capability is regulated by gca/nfa and any items designed to effectively mimick it are therefore also regulated.

A very similar and real loophole exists where people have exploited the use of an arm brace in place of a stock.

All that said, no I don’t agree with the laws, and I would like to see a lot of the restrictions relaxed or repealed, BUT as long as we have laws we must abide by them. We should not go out of our way to look for a loophole to exploit and then expect those loopholes not to be closed at some point. It would be beneficial if the common sense approach would show how silly and arbitrary some things actually are, but in the current social and political landscape that is not a reality.

 

[SilentStalker]

Well, I believe that what I read actually makes a little sense. It would be hard to judge an accessory off of the weapon, especially if it is not something that is already somewhat known in the industry. Bump stock would seem like a really crappy shoulder stock and might pass as such but without testing on a rifle then it would be hard to understand that it would aid in mimicking full auto fire.

I personally tend to lean to the side of closing loopholes rather than exploiting them, so in the case of bump stocks I see this as a benefit for the masses and govt agency as well. It could easily come to a point to where the law says full auto fire capability is regulated by gca/nfa and any items designed to effectively mimick it are therefore also regulated.

A very similar and real loophole exists where people have exploited the use of an arm brace in place of a stock.

All that said, no I don’t agree with the laws, and I would like to see a lot of the restrictions relaxed or repealed, BUT as long as we have laws we must abide by them. We should not go out of our way to look for a loophole to exploit and then expect those loopholes not to be closed at some point. It would be beneficial if the common sense approach would show how silly and arbitrary some things actually are, but in the current social and political landscape that is not a reality.

I read it that way as well. My comment was mostly in jest. However, I’d need something in writing somewhere saying that they would not prosecute me for making a weapon that may be an NFA item depending on how they classify it. Get what I’m saying? If you didn’t demand such a thing then you have much more faith in them than I do. It doesn’t say anywhere in there that they would not prosecute you for sending something in that could potentially be illegal. That’s a must imo. But yes, I get that they are trying to protect themselves to some extent. I just demand equal protection.

 

[WestKentucky]

I read it that way as well. My comment was mostly in jest. However, I’d need something in writing somewhere saying that they would not prosecute me for making a weapon that may be an NFA item depending on how they classify it. Get what I’m saying? If you didn’t demand such a thing then you have much more faith in them than I do. It doesn’t say anywhere in there that they would not prosecute you for sending something in that could potentially be illegal. That’s a must imo. But yes, I get that they are trying to protect themselves to some extent. I just demand equal protection.

Absolutely agree. There should be verbiage that addresses that point. The issue though goes further than that. As a person, or a company, there are very serious consequences for being found to be in possession of those items deemed contraband or regulated if your not permitted. If you are making the item to send it in, then you likely are going to have to build the item, possibly tweak it to make it work as intended, and then you would be ready to send it for approval. So if you are caught at any point in that process prior to sending in the sample then you are in deep trouble. There should be a way to describe what you intend to do to ATF, and if it is not clearly regulated and illegal then there should be a permit for making that item that absolves you of legal ramification until the sample is sent in, even if it has a short window of opportunity.

I understand that “manufacturers” have licenses to manufacture and that samples are permitted within the confines of the law, but as an individual, I would expect some means to establish that I can legally make the sample and submit it for approval.

 

[AlexanderA]

The ATF got burned with their bump stock determinations. They are trying to prevent such an embarrassment in the future.

 

[DPris]

When I saw that earlier, the way I read it is that you do it first, then ask if you've committed a crime.
AFTER which they'll tell you it's OK or it's not OK.

What happens, though, if it turns out to not be OK?
You're now in possession of a prohibited item without the proper approval process (fingerprints, tax stamp, etc.), and you've told 'em you did it.

Presumably you'd have to un-do it.
But would they send agents out to arrest?
To investigate whether you DID un-do it?
Would you have to prove you un-did it?
Would they seize just to be sure?
Are you forever in a databank?

This is a totally backwards approach, when somebody might be just considering a particular accessory & asks about it.
No way in hell I'd do it first & then ask ATF if it's legal.
Denis

 

[ontarget]

Kind of seems like it could turn into "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of thing.

 

[SilentStalker]

The ATF got burned with their bump stock determinations. They are trying to prevent such an embarrassment in the future.

Agreed.

 

[CoalTrain49]

There's a lot of grey areas in the ATF rules and regulations. Words like "may be" and "could be" show up everywhere. You even have people doing things that "may be" or "could be" illegal going on a verbal approval from an agent . What happens if that agent retires or leaves the agency. Gov't agencies won't give you a legal opinion on their own rules. I know because I've dealt with both fed and state agencies asking them to clarify and they simply won't do it.

What is common now is a letter saying you are in violation and you need to comply or face penalties or even jail. In that light I can see how this policy came about. The agency is leaving the door open to prosecute you any time they feel like it and make it stick. The biggest problem I see is the fed and the state have attorneys on staff to make a legal determination at any time. They are paid with your tax dollars yet they will be the ones to prosecute you, not help you to stay inside the legal boundaries. Even when they create the problem they want you to pay for it, seen that also.

Used to be I'm from the gov't and I'm here to help you. Now it's I'm from the gov't and I'm here to arrest you.

 

[Texas10mm]

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2018/12/11/classification-notice-follow-up/

Some light on the subject.

 

[CapnMac]

Dunno.
Maybe I've read too much bureaucrat forked tongue doublespeak, but, I'm seeing their response as: "Please don't ask if [doohicky] changes a classification; please only as if [doohickey] added to specific thing (Acme 2000 Coyote Carbine blunderbuss) changes a classification."

So, they are not asing you to assemble anything physically (maybe) but to do so verbally for purpose of clarification (possibility).

 

[boom boom]

Lesson for inventors-if you want to avoid jail, get a manufacturer's license where it becomes a "sample". Course, it might be a tad expensive and have lots of paperwork.

Seriously, Alexander A got it right. They got burned on a couple of issues, most recently the bump stock issue.

 

[Browning]

New idea for a book ... 'How to avoid being asked questions in a few easy steps'.