ATF making a move on Form 1 cans?

[150class]

From Quiet Bore

I'm going to try and keep this as short and sweet as possible,
To start, a quote from the NFA Division in response to us asking about the form 1's for suppressors status moving forward :
"The Form 1 for silencers will stay. We will just require additional documents/photos/etc to help us keep the Maker in compliance with the regulations.
So the applicant will complete the Form 1 as normal, but we are adding some instructions. We should have the new instructions up this week so ask them to wait."
Attached to this is the entirety of our email conversation with the NFA branch. At this time they have not responded to when a formal response will be from the atf in regards to the entire situation.

This change in process will most likely cause more headache, more work, and deterrents for people to complete an ATF Form 1.
Moving forward as a company:
We as an entity have always tried to promote the proper legal process of completing your own suppressor at home. Regardless of your feelings as an individual we've tried to be there and support customers and the community to the best of our abilities with education, outreach and having hard talks with the ATF & NFA.
As a community there is a lot of work to do, regardless of your feelings towards us as a company or any other entity in the form 1 industry. This industry has paved the way for new and great companies and research to be done on products in the market and would be a shame for it to burn out. We will be looking into how we, as a community can continue providing products to make your life easier in the process of building your own suppressor. Hopefully with the support of the pro 2a community we can address these ridiculous issues in a professional manner to find a solution that makes sense.
Thank you again for the countless support throughout the years. We will keep you guys updated with any more info we are informed about as soon as we can.

Thanks,

The QB Team

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just read the ATF email chain with them and the ATF basically told all Solvent Trap or Kit makers to pound sand. They are now classifying any part of a suppressor as a suppressor and are using court documents/code from 2015 to back it up.... Only way to make a Form 1 can going forward is someone who has all the machining at their house to make it from scratch.

Unless a bunch of lawsuits come forth to change things the Form 1 days are over boys...

[tvc184]

…………. So from a realistic standpoint (taking out the undrilled cones/cups/traps that people sell) any pipe that you might thread and or bar stock you may want to turn on a lathe into baffle, or the material you buy to 3d print baffles, must be registered before you can use it to build a suppressor. Its ridiculous……

I just read the ATF email chain with them and the ATF basically told all Solvent Trap or Kit makers to pound sand. They are now classifying any part of a suppressor as a suppressor and are using court documents/code from 2015 to back it up.... Only way to make a Form 1 can going forward is someone who has all the machining at their house to make it from scratch.

Unless a bunch of lawsuits come forth to change things the Form 1 days are over boys...

I’m going to take a stab at this.

This it just my opinion on how they are going to justify their actions. It is hardly unprecedented in concept.

I am not agreeing with ATF decisions however I’m looking at it from the way laws are written and interpreted.

CW mentioned any pipe or any bar stock or whatever that a person “might” turn into a suppressor. I understand the implication but that would not be correct. If that was true you could call a bunch of aluminum Dr Pepper cans a suppressor because a person could melt down several pounds of them and machine a suppressor later.

150 then mentions “any part of”.

Yes, a part of a suppressor would likely be illegal just like a full auto sear is not a gun but it is considered a machine gun.

As far as a part that might be later made into a suppressor, it goes by intent.

I will use Texas Penal Code law on Conspiracy as an example.

If two or more people discuss committing a felony, as far as I can tell there is no crime committed. But….. if any one person in that group commits an overt act with the intent to further the crime, the crime of Conspiracy to commit a crime has now been committed. So a couple of guys are sitting around and have a conversation that goes something like this. Have you ever thought about robbing a bank… and it goes on from there to a discussion like……. I have, so maybe I could get us a couple of guns or you could get some plans or surveillance of the bank and see where any guards might be, etc. At that point I believe there is no crime committed. But if the first guy goes out and buys a gun, even lawfully at that moment or second guy goes into a bank and start making sketches and notes….. they just committed a second-degree felony and are looking at up to 20 years in prison.

Most of the time talk is just talk. When you discuss committing a felony and then someone in that discussion takes an active part by doing something to set up the felony, that becomes a crime at that moment for everyone involved even if only one person did the overt act. It is one degree lower than actually committing the crime. So discussing committing an aggravated robbery (1st Degree Felony) and then doing something to further it, becomes a second-degree felony conspiracy.

I believe the ATF is probably using that same rationale on suppressors. I know very little about the solvent trap suppressors but I think the issue is that some companies are marking where to drill a hole to make the baffles. That is an overt act to commit what is a felony without a prior approval. Just looking this up on Google, I see where you could buy kits. Would a kit or trigger advertised to make a machine gun be legal? I think not.

As 150class summed it up, unless you’re machining it from scratch.

So as CW mentioned, with a blank piece of barstock be illegal? I don’t see how because nothing has been done to it. What I have read on the solvent traps however, something has been modified on it (markings) to make it easier for a person to change it into a suppressor. There in lies the difference.

As far as a lawsuit, that will be great if it works. If the US Congress however has given the ATF the statutory authority to make rulings and determinations on what is legal and what is not, I’m not sure where a lawsuit could end as far as approving the items.

[CSF45]

Beansprout, thank you for the update. I haven't really had an outlet/community to follow what is going on with all of this outside of here. I appreciate the update.

I just had an e-form 1 SBR approved a couple weeks ago

[CWendling]

They havent started on the SBR denials yet...just all the suppressors

[dhall1414]

Why aren't all rifles required to file as SBRs? You can just take a band saw or an angle grinder to the barrel and get it under 16". And they probably will eventually try to classify a stack of Dr pepper cans as a suppressor. This has nothing to do with logic and every thing to do with power. They want to make everything illegal then use their "discretion" to selectively enforce the law. They're already doing that with taxes and free speech issues.

[tvc184]

Why aren't all rifles required to file as SBRs? You can just take a band saw or an angle grinder to the barrel and get it under 16". And they probably will eventually try to classify a stack of Dr pepper cans as a suppressor. This has nothing to do with logic and every thing to do with power. They want to make everything illegal then use their "discretion" to selectively enforce the law. They're already doing that with taxes and free speech issues.

I am positive that you will not like the answer but read or reread my post on #17.

It is not what you can do with it that is the problem.

The process of making a suppressor has already been started by a company who is marking and marketing it for you to make a suppressor and showing you where to drill. When they mark it with the intent for you to make a suppressor out of it, they are now in the process of manufacturing a suppressor without a prior stamp.

It is not what you “can” do with it. It is what somebody else is “already” doing with it.

[krisw]

Yes, a part of a suppressor would likely be illegal just like a full auto sear is not a gun but it is considered a machine gun.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the auto sear the registered part of a machine gun?

[M16]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the auto sear the registered part of a machine gun?

It can be or the gun itself can be a registered receiver. I own a couple of M16's and it's the receiver that's registered not the sear.

[CWendling]

I am positive that you will not like the answer but read or reread my post on #17.

It is not what you can do with it that is the problem.

The process of making a suppressor has already been started by a company who is marking and marketing it for you to make a suppressor and showing you where to drill. When they mark it with the intent for you to make a suppressor out of it, they are now in the process of manufacturing a suppressor without a prior stamp.

It is not what you “can” do with it. It is what somebody else is “already” doing with it.

That was a while back. None of the ones im aware of for a while now have marked them in any way of where to drill. I understand what you are saying. It doesnt change the fact that it makes no sense from a practical standpoint of where material is sourced to build one. If you are approved to have one, you are approved. Where is the difference between an SOT sourcing cones and threaded tubes for a F4 can and me buying undrilled cones for my F1 to drill once i am approved? Back in the old days there were many cans made from threaded tubes and engine freeze plugs. So those are now suppressors per ATF? Washers welded inside a tube are suppressors?

[KNP16]

They sent emails last night to apparently everyone that had an active form 1's (could also have went to the ones that were recently denied). Below is what it reads. From my point of view this looks like entrapment 101 for anyone that provides this information as it would surly show "intent" which is their whole deal here. Either way as of this morning I have contacted my Congressman, both senators, and the AG Paxton (understand he is only state level, but want to make as many people aware of this as possible). I doubt it will help but will try and do my part.

Additional steps: eForm 1 Silencer submission
Dear eForm 1 applicant,
The National Firearms Act (NFA) Division received your ATF eForm 1, Application to Make and Register a Firearm. As a part of the application process, NFA Division must confirm that the making or possession of a firearm would not place the applicant in violation of law.[1]
NFA Division requests that you provide certain additional information so that it may determine whether your eForm 1 application to make a silencer may lawfully be approved. Specifically, please submit to NFA Division the following:
• Pictures of the parts that you will use to make the silencer (the pictures should be clear and allow the identification of the parts photographed),
• A description of the processes you will use to assemble or fabricate the silencer,
• The product, model, or kit name, if any, of each device and/or part that you will use to make the silencer, and
• The source from which the parts were obtained, i.e., the name of the store, website, etc.
The additional information may be submitted to NFA Division at the following email address: FORM1Silencerquestions@atf.gov. Please include the form Permit Control Number or eForm ID in the Subject bar for each correspondence with attachments. The additional information may also be sent by mail to:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
National Firearms Act Division
244 Needy Road
Martinsburg, WV25405
Without the additional descriptive information, NFA Division will be unable to determine whether the eForm 1 application to make a silencer may lawfully be approved. Therefore, failure to submit the requested information by March 25, 2022, will result in your application being disapproved and your $200.00 making tax refunded.
Questions regarding this email should be directed to FORM1Silencerquestions@atf.gov. If you have additional inquiries, please call 304-616-4500.
________________________________________
[1] An ATF Form 1 application to make a silencer cannot lawfully be approved if the maker will make the silencer with parts that are themselves classified as silencers under federal law and the parts were transferred to the maker without complying with the tax, transfer, and registration requirements of the NFA. An approved Form 1 does not authorize any person to manufacture the silencer on behalf of the Form 1 maker. An approved Form 1 does not authorize the transfer of a silencer to the Form 1 maker. A subsequently approved Form 1 does not legitimize the transfer of a silencer that did not comply with the tax, transfer, and registration requirements of the NFA. Further, it is a violation of the NFA to make a false entry on any NFA application. 26 U.S.C. 5861(l). The maker must certify on the Form 1 application that the maker is the person who will make the silencer identified on the Form 1 application. The maker’s certification is a false entry on the Form 1 application if the maker’s Form 1 silencer was manufactured by another person.

[dhall1414]

I am positive that you will not like the answer but read or reread my post on #17.

It is not what you can do with it that is the problem.

The process of making a suppressor has already been started by a company who is marking and marketing it for you to make a suppressor and showing you where to drill. When they mark it with the intent for you to make a suppressor out of it, they are now in the process of manufacturing a suppressor without a prior stamp.

It is not what you “can” do with it. It is what somebody else is “already” doing with it.

Short of someone publicly and irrefutably declaring their intent, all the govt has to go on is their guess to your intent. What if you're making a muffler for a lawn mower? If this convoluted logic is allowed the case precedent could be used to make anyone and everyone a felon.

Edit: fwiw I understand and appreciate the explanation from the govt's "trust us to do our jobs" perspective but given their track record I'd sooner trust a ****** off rattlesnake to not bite me than a govt agency to not abuse authority. The real and permanent solution is to take away the bureaucracies' ability to make law via definition changes.

[tvc184]

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the auto sear the registered part of a machine gun?

Is an auto sear registered? No.

Is an auto sear considered a machine gun? Yes.

[tvc184]

They sent emails last night to apparently everyone that had an active form 1's (could also have went to the ones that were recently denied). Below is what it reads. From my point of view this looks like entrapment 101 for anyone that provides this information as it would surly show "intent" which is their whole deal here. Either way as of this morning I have contacted my Congressman, both senators, and the AG Paxton (understand he is only state level, but want to make as many people aware of this as possible). I doubt it will help but will try and do my part.

Additional steps: eForm 1 Silencer submission
Dear eForm 1 applicant,
The National Firearms Act (NFA) Division received your ATF eForm 1, Application to Make and Register a Firearm. As a part of the application process, NFA Division must confirm that the making or possession of a firearm would not place the applicant in violation of law.[1]
NFA Division requests that you provide certain additional information so that it may determine whether your eForm 1 application to make a silencer may lawfully be approved. Specifically, please submit to NFA Division the following:
• Pictures of the parts that you will use to make the silencer (the pictures should be clear and allow the identification of the parts photographed),
• A description of the processes you will use to assemble or fabricate the silencer,
• The product, model, or kit name, if any, of each device and/or part that you will use to make the silencer, and
• The source from which the parts were obtained, i.e., the name of the store, website, etc.
The additional information may be submitted to NFA Division at the following email address: FORM1Silencerquestions@atf.gov. Please include the form Permit Control Number or eForm ID in the Subject bar for each correspondence with attachments. The additional information may also be sent by mail to:
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
National Firearms Act Division
244 Needy Road
Martinsburg, WV25405
Without the additional descriptive information, NFA Division will be unable to determine whether the eForm 1 application to make a silencer may lawfully be approved. Therefore, failure to submit the requested information by March 25, 2022, will result in your application being disapproved and your $200.00 making tax refunded.
Questions regarding this email should be directed to FORM1Silencerquestions@atf.gov. If you have additional inquiries, please call 304-616-4500.
________________________________________
[1] An ATF Form 1 application to make a silencer cannot lawfully be approved if the maker will make the silencer with parts that are themselves classified as silencers under federal law and the parts were transferred to the maker without complying with the tax, transfer, and registration requirements of the NFA. An approved Form 1 does not authorize any person to manufacture the silencer on behalf of the Form 1 maker. An approved Form 1 does not authorize the transfer of a silencer to the Form 1 maker. A subsequently approved Form 1 does not legitimize the transfer of a silencer that did not comply with the tax, transfer, and registration requirements of the NFA. Further, it is a violation of the NFA to make a false entry on any NFA application. 26 U.S.C. 5861(l). The maker must certify on the Form 1 application that the maker is the person who will make the silencer identified on the Form 1 application. The maker’s certification is a false entry on the Form 1 application if the maker’s Form 1 silencer was manufactured by another person.

It’s not entrapment….

It looks more like a way to get a person to voluntarily give up his right to remain silent and self incriminate.

[tvc184]

Short of someone publicly and irrefutably declaring their intent, all the govt has to go on is their guess to your intent. What if you're making a muffler for a lawn mower? If this convoluted logic is allowed the case precedent could be used to make anyone and everyone a felon.

Edit: fwiw I understand and appreciate the explanation from the govt's "trust us to do our jobs" perspective but given their track record I'd sooner trust a ****** off rattlesnake to not bite me than a govt agency to not abuse authority. The real and permanent solution is to take away the bureaucracies' ability to make law via definition changes.

On another personal opinion….

NFA was ruled lawful by SCOTUS in US v. Miller because a sawed off shotgun was only allowed in well organized militias.

Agree or disagree, that was the ruling.

Almost 70 years later in DC v. Heller, SCOTUS ruled that the militia part of the Second Amendment was just a preamble and that the right to bear arms was an individual right.

A problem in my opinion is that the justification of the NFA under Miller was negated by Heller.

So…

Miller: The right to bear arms dealt with a well regulated militia.

Heller: The right to bear Arms is an individual right and does not depend on a militia.

It seems to me that the entire justification of the NFA should have been overturned in Heller.

That ruling was subsequently reaffirmed in McDonald v. Chicago where SCOTUS ruled that due to the 14th Amendment, Heller and individual rights applied to state and city laws also.

I know that the NRA wanted the New York City case to go to the Supreme Court because a favorable ruling might have overturned most gun laws in this country. NYC saw the handwriting on the wall and repealed that law. That negated a SCOTUS ruling.

It seems like the NRA or the GOA or somebody might get a case to SCOTUS that shows the premise of Miller was overturned in Heller and McDonald.

[M16]

Is an auto sear registered? No.

Is an auto sear considered a machine gun? Yes.

I believe auto sears are registered. They have serial numbers stamped or engraved just for that purpose.