Is this a valid tax "stamp"?

[coloradokevin]

I just received an e-mail notification that my Form 1 SBR has FINALLY been approved by the ATF. This form was electronically submitted a few months ago. I logged on to the e-form system, and was able to view and print a color copy of the Form 1, which printed a color rendition of the tax stamp on the electronic Form 1. This form contains an electronic signature of the ATF official, and is dated with today's date.

Am I now able to assemble my SBR, or do I need to wait for an actual stamp to arrive in the mail? Am I even going to receive the actual stamp, or is this electronic rendering the new way that things are done?

I already have another stamp for a suppressor, but that one was submitted on paper, and came with the traditional stamp on the Form 4 when it was approved.

So, what now?

 

[Sav .250]

I`d say ....your go to good.

 

[Olympus]

Yes, that is all you will receive by using Eforms. You won't get an actual stamp. You're good to go!

 

[VinnAY]

Yep, you won't get a "stamp" in the mail. Print the form 1 approval with the image on it and you're good-to-go. I fold that up and stuff in the pistol grip, keep several hard copies with the Trust, etc..,

 

[Arizona_Mike]

A number of people have made compelling claims that their E-stamps do not meet the statutes but it's all you get. As a practical matter, any prosecution is estopped.

Mike

 

[Olympus]

I take my approved forms to Kinkos and have them shrink it to 5x7 and laminate them. I keep a card in every vehicle, in my range bag, and in my case with my gun.

 

[coloradokevin]

Olympus, I've done that in the past, too. But, this is the first time I haven't received an actual stamp with my tax "stamp"… in the past I always kept the physical stamp stored in my safe at home.

As someone else mentioned, the argument is floating around on the Interweb claiming that this doesn't meet the federal requirements for a tax stamp (and their argument is compelling based on the laws they quoted). Nevertheless, I called the ATF today, and some idiot who answered their phone (I say idiot because this guy was barely capable of conversational communication) indicated that the electronic stamp is all I would receive, and is all I need.

 

[Olympus]

Thinking is that if ATF designed the Eform system, encouraged owners to use it, and then provided a digital copy of a stamp, then if they wanted it done a different way, they would have done so. If they don't mail an actual stamp, that's on them and not me. We paid our $200, made our application, and got an approval so I'd say that's what counts. I have no worries at all about getting in trouble over a scanned stamp. I did my part.

 

[Aaron Baker]

Thinking is that if ATF designed the Eform system, encouraged owners to use it, and then provided a digital copy of a stamp, then if they wanted it done a different way, they would have done so. If they don't mail an actual stamp, that's on them and not me. We paid our $200, made our application, and got an approval so I'd say that's what counts. I have no worries at all about getting in trouble over a scanned stamp. I did my part.

Exactly. The legal doctrine is called "estoppel." The idea is that even if e-stamps are somehow not compliant with federal law, the ATF can't enforce that law against stampholders because they're the ones that issued them.

OP, don't worry about the technical arguments about whether e-stamps are "legal" or not. It's all you'll get, and there are tens of thousands (at a minimum) of people with them and it's good enough for the ATF, so it's good enough for me.

Aaron

 

[coloradokevin]

Sounds good, thanks for the input guys!

 

[medalguy]

Of course, you don't get the nice blue stamp that you can sell to a collector after you transfer out the item. Those help in a small way to offset the cost of a new stamp. You aren't done with just this one, are you?

 

[coloradokevin]

Naw, this is already my second one. I need a few more. I do kind of miss the traditional stamp, but my desire to have one probably isn't great enough to cause me to paper file and wait longer.

 

[agtman]

The legal doctrine is called "estoppel." The idea is that even if e-stamps are somehow not compliant with federal law, the ATF can't enforce that law against stampholders because they're the ones that issued them.

There's also the well-recognized legal exception against applying that doctrine to government entities - i.e., the "gommit" is never estopped.

As one attorney once put it, the exception exists to allow the government's left hand to protect the right hand from each other's ignorance.

All that said, when push comes to shove on a given NFA issue and the matter ends up in federal court, the BATFE's track record for "wins" isn't very impressive.

 

[Aaron Baker]

There's also the well-recognized legal exception against applying that doctrine to government entities - i.e., the "gommit" is never estopped.

An interesting issue. I wouldn't say "never" as there are hardly ever absolutes in the law.

To quote the opening line from a Yale Law Journal article from 1969, "the solidly entrenched, though little discussed, judicial principle that the government cannot be estopped in criminal actions is now subject to some doubt."

I have a feeling that, just as you say, the ATF's track record for being soundly trounced in court would continue if they tried to prosecute someone for not having a valid tax stamp when they themselves had issued the e-stamp and held it out to be valid.

I suppose they could couch it in terms of entrapment instead, but the result is the same.

Aaron

 

[pjeski]

What about a state, for instance, deciding that the stamp is not valid and therefore possessing the NFA item is against state law?

 

[agtman]

What about a state, for instance, deciding that the stamp is not valid and therefore possessing the NFA item is against state law?

Good point.

The state could argue that if estoppel applied at all, it would only apply against the federal gov't - or BATFE as the subordinate issuing agency - and not to the state because the state was never a "party" to the NFA transaction and the Form 1 or Form 4 itself is a federal, not a state, application.

However, at least in cases where an individual applicant filed a paper F1/F4, the defendant could argue that the state waived any right to prosecute when the CLEO signed off on the form.

If the state, by law, permits trusts, and an NFA trust was properly executed under state law and the trust-based F1/F4 application was filled out correctly, the same waiver argument could be made.

In the case of "gommit" entities, a waiver defense based on a then-legally compliant paper trail is typically a better argument than estoppel.

Just sayin' ...

 

[dogtown tom]

pjeski What about a state, for instance, deciding that the stamp is not valid and therefore possessing the NFA item is against state law?

A tax stamp is not required to lawfully possess an NFA firearm.
I'm sitting on around twenty suppressors/SBR/machine guns WAITING on tax stamps.

Further, I don't have tax stamps on any of my own SBS/SBR/silencers.....they are all on Form 3's.

agtman .......However, at least in cases where an individual applicant filed a paper F1/F4, the defendant could argue that the state waived any right to prosecute when the CLEO signed off on the form.

The CLEO signature on a Form 1 or Form 4 is not permission, just his statement that the applicant is not a prohibited person. It does not grant permission to possess the firearm.

 

[pjeski]

A tax stamp is not required to lawfully possess an NFA firearm.
I'm sitting on around twenty suppressors/SBR/machine guns WAITING on tax stamps.

Further, I don't have tax stamps on any of my own SBS/SBR/silencers.....they are all on Form 3's.





The CLEO signature on a Form 1 or Form 4 is not permission, just his statement that the applicant is not a prohibited person. It does not grant permission to possess the firearm.

Depending on the way the state law is written, a tax stamp may be needed to show a non FFL can posses the NFA item IAW state law. We're not all dealers.

I believe you are correct on the CLEO sign off.

 

[agtman]

The CLEO signature on a Form 1 or Form 4 is not permission, just his statement that the applicant is not a prohibited person. It does not grant permission to possess the firearm.

Go back and read my post, chief.

I never said the CLEO's sign-off was "permission." That's your conclusion.

On individual paper F1s/F4s, the CLEO's sign-off is a mandatory prerequisite to BATFE's approval of the application, and probably the most important one, notwithstanding that BATFE does its own background check on the applicant.

At least until Congress changes that process - by amending the NFA statute - it is what it is, unless the applicant avoids the CLEO issue by going the trust route for his or her NFA toys.

 

[dogtown tom]

pjeski ...Depending on the way the state law is written, a tax stamp may be needed to show a non FFL can posses the NFA item IAW state law. We're not all dealers.

I don't believe any state describes a requirement for a "stamp", only that the firearm be registered with the Federal government or that the possessor has paid the appropriate tax.

Texas for example uses this language:
"It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor’s possession was pursuant to registration pursuant to the National Firearms Act, as amended."
While a tax stmp affixed to a Form1 or Form 4 would be proof of having paid a tax, it isn't required when there are tax free NFA registrations.
Form 3's and 5's don't have stamps because they are transferred tax free.

agtman Go back and read my post, chief.

I did.
You wrote: "...the state waived any right to prosecute when the CLEO signed off on the form..."
"Signed off" is held by many as getting permission, without that signature your Form1 or 4 is dead in the water. Although the CLEO is only certifying that the applicant is not prohibited, many CLEO's refuse to sign based on the belief that it makes them liable....either legally or in the court of public opinion.
Further, the belief that "the state" waives a right to prosecute based on the CLEO signature is laughable.

 

[JohnKSa]

Texas for example uses this language:
"It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor’s possession was pursuant to registration pursuant to the National Firearms Act, as amended."

This law was changed in the last legislative session by the adoption of Senate Bill 473 which was signed by Abbott in June and goes into effect on 1 September 2015.

The link contains the text of the bill.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/SB00473F.pdf#navpanes=0

"A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs, or sells (an NFA Item) unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives..."​

It looks like registration is sufficient to avoid prosecution under the new TX law; there is no mention of the stamp itself.

 

[pjeski]

I don't believe any state describes a requirement for a "stamp", only that the firearm be registered with the Federal government or that the possessor has paid the appropriate tax.

Texas for example uses this language:
"It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor’s possession was pursuant to registration pursuant to the National Firearms Act, as amended."
While a tax stmp affixed to a Form1 or Form 4 would be proof of having paid a tax, it isn't required when there are tax free NFA registrations.
Form 3's and 5's don't have stamps because they are transferred tax free.

I know that form 3s and 5s don't have stamps, but 1's and 4's do. And while the state law doesn't specifically require the stamp, it requires proper registration. If that is by an individual on a form 1 or 4, that requires the stamp implicitly.

Michigan's law requires that you have the registration form with you. Again not specifically mentioning the stamp, I am pretty sure you can't argue that you don't need a stamp on a form 1 or 4 because they are not required on 3's and 5's.

 

[dogtown tom]

pjeski Quote:

Originally Posted by dogtown tom View Post
I don't believe any state describes a requirement for a "stamp", only that the firearm be registered with the Federal government or that the possessor has paid the appropriate tax.

Texas for example uses this language:
"It is a defense to prosecution under this section that the actor’s possession was pursuant to registration pursuant to the National Firearms Act, as amended."
While a tax stmp affixed to a Form1 or Form 4 would be proof of having paid a tax, it isn't required when there are tax free NFA registrations.
Form 3's and 5's don't have stamps because they are transferred tax free.

I know that form 3s and 5s don't have stamps, but 1's and 4's do. And while the state law doesn't specifically require the stamp, it requires proper registration. If that is by an individual on a form 1 or 4, that requires the stamp implicitly.....

You are missing the point of this thread.
For those who file using Eforms, they don't receive an actual stamp, just a .pdf of their approved form. They will never receive an actual cancelled NFA tax stamp but instead a picture of one on the .pdf of the form.

Michigan's law requires that you have the registration form with you.

So do several states. But please show where any state law mentions that an approved ATF Form 1 or Form 4 must have an actual stamp attached. I don't think you'll find such language. And that's the point of this thread....ATF doesn't issue actual stamps with Eforms.

Again not specifically mentioning the stamp, I am pretty sure you can't argue that you don't need a stamp on a form 1 or 4 because they are not required on 3's and 5's.

That wasn't my argument.