Latest from the ATF: No more opinion letters Unless . . .

[SC-Texas]

Latest from the ATF: No more opinion letters Unless . . .

This is interesting. Just received from the BATFE.


The BATFE will not render an opinion on the effect of an accessory on a firearm unless that firearm is included with the accessory and the accessory is installed when it is sent to the batfe. One has to wonder if the fact that the ATF is supposedly about to render some new regulations has something to do with this email that I received today.

The effect that this ruling has on the industry is profound. It greatly increases the cost of bringing new accessories to Market. The accessory manufacturer who is Seeking a determination from the batfe must install the proposed accessory on the firearm that it will be used on and send that combination to the ATF Tech Branch for a determination. This will have a extreme chilling effect own small manufacturers and large manufacturers ability to innovate and bring new products to Market.

It will also stop every Tom Dick and Harry from riding random letters to the ATF asking them if something is legal or not which often has resulted in contradictory opinions.

Discontinuance of Accessory ClassificationsEffective 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.

https://content.govdelivery.com/acco...letins/22189c1

[prdubi]

In the end,
I thank Eric Larson, the lawyer scum who destroyed the akins accelerator.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[MegademiC]

Nevermind

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The BATFE will not render an opinion on the effect of an accessory on a firearm unless that farm is included with the accessory and install them the accessory when it is sent to the batfe.

I'm not a grammar nazi, but I had to read that four times to make sure that I understood what you meant.

Sounds like ATF wants more toys to play with and keep the workload down.

[fledge]

They repeated their policy so many times to prevent someone asking for an opinion letter on the letter.

I don’t see what the problem is here. If you make a prototype accessory you are using a firearm (or a dozen) for R&D. Why not send the firearm with accessory for their approval for full transparency?

[Renegade]

I don’t see what the problem is here. If you make a prototype accessory you are using a firearm (or a dozen) for R&D. Why not send the firearm with accessory for their approval for full transparency?

Put a foregrip on a Glock pistol and send it in asking if it is a pistol.

Get a letter back saying it is not a pistol, it is an AOW. It is confiscated as contraband and you are being referred to the US attorney for charges of making an AOW, possession of AOW, interstate xfer of a AOW, yada, yada, yada.

I think that is how the tin hat crowd will see it.

[fledge]

Put a foregrip on a Glock pistol and send it in asking if it is a pistol.

Get a letter back saying it is not a pistol, it is an AOW. It is confiscated as contraband and you are being referred to the US attorney for charges of making an AOW, possession of AOW, interstate xfer of a AOW, yada, yada, yada.

I think that is how the tin hat crowd will see it.

Roger that. I was thinking more from a development perspective. But I can see that abuse of power too...

[boltcatch]

Put a foregrip on a Glock pistol and send it in asking if it is a pistol.

Get a letter back saying it is not a pistol, it is an AOW. It is confiscated as contraband and you are being referred to the US attorney for charges of making an AOW, possession of AOW, interstate xfer of a AOW, yada, yada, yada.

I think that is how the tin hat crowd will see it.

It's my understanding that what happens in that case is you can get it back if you're an SOT, but otherwise they'll keep it and that's the end of it.

Even if that's the case, it does put a minor additional barrier to entry for parts makers, and a more substantial one for individual tinkerers and hobbyists.

[WickedWillis]

Put a foregrip on a Glock pistol and send it in asking if it is a pistol.

Get a letter back saying it is not a pistol, it is an AOW. It is confiscated as contraband and you are being referred to the US attorney for charges of making an AOW, possession of AOW, interstate xfer of a AOW, yada, yada, yada.

I think that is how the tin hat crowd will see it.

Yet if anyone actually does this, they are asking for it to get confiscated. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

[Renegade]

It's my understanding that what happens in that case is you can get it back if you're an SOT, but otherwise they'll keep it and that's the end of it.

Well a smart person would register it first, then send it in.

Yet if anyone actually does this, they are asking for it to get confiscated. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

That specific example? Sure. That one is common knowledge. But new stuff like unrifled barrels, was not.