Usi NFA Div EMAIL for F3 or F5 Transfer submissions?

[msmp5]

I’ve got a few questions for those of you that regularly do - or have done - email submissions of NFA transfer forms utilizing [email protected] ……

Is the correct email address [email protected]? Or [email protected]? Does one or the other get a better or quicker response?

Does the form simply get submitted as a PDF attachment? Do you just type it up, like you would for a paper form submitted via US mail, and then send the scanned PDF image of that to the ATF email? And a copy of the same form comes back approved (hopefully)? Or does an approved form in some other format come back?

Is there a standard or typical wording or phrase that is used in the Subject line of the email, to which the Form is (presumably) attached?

If a Form 3 is submitted via email, utilizing the NFAfax@whatever email address, how long is the typical turnaround time to get that form back from NFA Div? And I’d assume that it also comes back via email, right? (Not US Mail?)

Does the use of this email procedure require some sort of prior notification process to ATF? Like an email attesting that the signature on the form being electronically submitted is a true signature of the Transferor? Or …..???

Do you have to submit it “in duplicate“ - email two identical signed forms - like if it was sent via US Mail?

Does an email submission like this require a “cover sheet” of some type or format, or certain verbiage in the body of the email?

I have not done one of these before, but I am considering trying it. So I would like to hear from somebody with experience in these types of ATF form submissions. Appreciate any responses or info!

 

[dogtown tom]

When eForm 3's are approved in a matter of days if not hours......why on earth would you want to submit via email?
They would be printed out and treated like a paper submission. Paper takes twice as long as eForms.

If your customers find out you utilize the slowest method they may begin to buy elsewhere.

 

[msmp5]

When eForm 3's are approved in a matter of days if not hours......why on earth would you want to submit via email?
They would be printed out and treated like a paper submission. Paper takes twice as long as eForms.

Because some of my NFA guns were registered to my company so long ago, they are not in my eForms inventory. I have been trying for months to get them added in, but so far, it hasn't happened. Until it does, my only choices are (a) paper forms mailed in, which seems to take about 6 weeks, mailbox to mail box or (b) using the NFA email to submit them, which I've been told usually takes about 2 weeks. I haven't tried the email submission method yet, but I plan to try it soon. I was just hoping someone on here had done it before and could give me a brief "tutorial" on the process!

 

[dogtown tom]

I have two identical Benelli SBS's showing in my inventory. Same serial#. NFA Div can't figure out how to delete the redundancy.
I also have one silencer showing that I never received.

 

[usaral63]

I have two identical Benelli SBS's showing in my inventory. Same serial#. NFA Div can't figure out how to delete the redundancy.
I also have one silencer showing that I never received.

In short, regardless of what they say, their records are a friggin mess and not all that accurate. Fair statement?

 

[dogtown tom]

In short, regardless of what they say, their records are a friggin mess and not all that accurate. Fair statement?

They always have been.
FOIA request reveals ATF doesn't believe its own bull
and
Hardy v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives and Office of Inspector General

 

[CapnMac]

In fairness, the Registry was created in 1934, when even punchcard data sorting was still a "new-fangled" and "expensive" process.
Those writing the NFA were of a mindset that no one would actually want to go through the process (especially as they intended it as a ban), so they never imagined needing more than a simple binder for the, perhaps, hundred things that would be listed. So, they had no impetus to also write into law that the Registry be a sort-able, audit-able, construction.
Later Congresses were equally dismissive in their appropriations for a truly working database. And, in government, as in life, you seldom get what you do not pay for explicitly.
And, of course, now, closing in on a century later, moving the Registry to an actual database that could be audited would cost billions--so nobody wants that on their budget request.