quote:

KAK braces never cam with straps and the BATF approved them. I have kept mine stock so I am in compliance.

Well great!! The main thing is not to keep writing letters or call the ATF for every little clarification. You will piss them off with all of the bullshit and we will be back to where we started with the whole thing. Don't be that classroom nerd that had to remind the teacher about homework....Savy?

quote:

Originally posted by SFCUSARET:
The main thing is not to keep writing letters or call the ATF for every little clarification.

Good advice. Unfortunately, there are two groups who will not follow it: Those who don’t read advice here, and those who will think, “Don’t tell me what to do! I know how to deal with those people, and I will regardless of what anyone else says.”

The BATFE letter references "Revenue Ruling 61-45."

There is only one problem. There is no accessible copy of Revenue Ruling 61-45 at atf.gov. From other rulings I've seen, I have deduced that "61" is a reference to the year of issuance being 1961, and 45 is an accession number series for that year (i.e., this ruling was the 45th one for that 1961).

There are decades of these rulings that are neither publicly accessible nor searchable via the internet, yet we are expected to magically know what the document says.

Were I made BATFE Director, there would be three immediate actions I'd undertake:

1. Greater transparency. I started this with my observation about the inaccessibility of decades of BATFE and its predecessors ruling and correspondence that is being treated as regulation. I'd drag BATFE into the 21st century. First, Revenue Ruling 61-45 is not a federal statute or regulation. It was not in a bill passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, nor has it undergone public notice and comment as required under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). If its important enough to be an official ruling, its important enough to go through the APA rulemaking process.

There is no centralized, searchable digital resource of decades of these documents. That would come to an end. I would direct the BATFE to begin a project to turn every one of those documents into a .pdf format key word searchable database that would be placed on the internet. During this process, every such document that can be rescinded would be, and it would still be made public. I would include the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record database, stripped of information on the owner (i.e., the data would be manufacturer, place of manufacture, importer and place of importation (if any), model, type, and caliber), along with date of each transfer. I suspect there are similar documents and rulings in the alcohol, tobacco, and explosives arenas, and those mission areas would not be excluded from this initiative. I would also direct BATFE to put every proposed rule, every information collection document, every response to comments document, and every final rule into a .pdf format key word searchable database.

I would also bring an immediate end to any cozy backroom wink and nod information sharing relationships (i.e., you hear me, National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association (NFATCA)?). When BATFE wants to meet with members of the public or trade groups, it would do so PUBLICLY, as required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), except I'd expand on the FACA requirements to make open discussion with the regulated entities and the public a frequent, regular, and routine event, with minutes of each meeting made public in a .pdf format key word searchable database.

2. Clearing the backlog of NFA forms waiting to be processed. I recently purchased a suppressor and it took six weeks for the Form 3 to be processed allowing the seller to send it to my local FFL/SOT. Those should be automatically approved upon the necessary form being submitted.

Once at my local FFL/SOT, I learned the current backlog is so large, it will be between 10 and 14 months before my Form 4 is approved. Meanwhile, my property is inaccessible to me. The irony is if I wanted to pay the $500 SOT tax, I could have had it shipped directly to me (I hold a type 01 federal firearms license).

If I were the BATFE Director, I would assign enough people to clearing this backlog in less than 90 days. One streamlining idea I'd implement is directing the NFA Branch to only consult the NICS system. BATFE admitted in the ATF41P proposed rulemaking (the one that created the "responsible person" nonsense for trusts and other legal entities) that in addition to transmitting fingerprints to the FBI for a criminal history check (we know that the FBI is swamped with these all the time), ATF routinely queries the following databases and indexes:

• National Crime Information Center
• TECS (formerly named the Treasury Enforcement Communication System)
• National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System
• Interstate Identification Index
• National Instant Criminal Background Check System [NICS].

The Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act (Pub.L. 103–159) established NICS as the nation’s central resource for determining if federal or state law prevents transfer of any firearm to a specific individual. By using databases other than NICS, BATFE has instituted extralegal requirements for transfer of one category of firearms – those requiring excise tax payments for transfer between two parties. That would come to a screeching halt.

I would also direct the BATFE regulatory affairs office to begin a rulemaking to discontinuing BATFE’s current process for submission and review of Forms 1, 4, and 5. I would work to transfer the entire process to the federal firearms licensees who possess the requisite SOT certificate. The NFA tax would be collected at the point of transfer, just like sales taxes are in jurisdictions with those kinds of taxes. This would reduce transactional costs, increase realized revenue, permit reassignment of the NFA examiners to supporting more pressing mission areas (e.g., breaking up the murderous gang violence in Chicago), and speed the process from its current 10-14 month (or more) duration. Concurrently, I'd work with the White House and Congress to amend the NFA to remove suppressors from the taxation scheme entirely. The gun controllers want the US to have European type firearms laws, so lets start with treating suppressors the way they do - as not a firearm at all.

3. Embrace 21st century business models. BATFE has done nothing to change their view of business operations, despite the incredible pace and scheme of business change. 25 years ago, the idea of wholly internet-based businesses like Amazon were a pipe dream. Today, they are a near-indispensable part of everyday life. Yet BATFE has barely embraced these changes. Probably the bigget change is in alcohol production, with the rise of small vineyards, micro-brewing, and not small, local distilleries. Why isn't that change reflected in the firearms arena? Alcohol is actually more restricted in terms of the marketplace than guns! You can buy alcohol at once you are 21, but you can buy a rifle or shotgun at 18. Tobacco is 18 too. Its time for BATFE to stop being focused on old business models, and to reinvigorate their role in helping business succeed while compiling with the law.

Thanks for letting me vent. If any of you have an "in" with President Trump's administration, and you agree with my ideas, go ahead, recommend me. I'd take the job of BATFE Director. I think it pays well.

http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?p=3524

ATF Says That Shouldering Shockwave Blade is Okay!

I just got off the phone with a very nice gentleman at ATF Tech Branch—who was fielding these calls today. (He was, understandably, very well versed on the subject—and very nice about it even though he’s been on the phone all day, repeating himself ad nauseam.) I identified myself and asked him specifically if the letter that’s making the rounds is limited to one company’s products–or if it applies to all pistol stabilizing braces. He said: “The letter covers all pistol stabilizing braces, including the Shockwave Blade.” So that settles that.

He then gave me a bit of further guidance for our customers:

By “permanent affixing,” ATF considers that to be adding permanent Loctite to the large set screw that secures the Blade into the dimples in the KAK tube. As long as you don’t red Loctite the set screw in place, ATF considers it to be “temporarily placed” and “perfectly okay to shoulder.” (He didn’t beat around the bush on this topic.)
“Length of pull”—for lack of a better word regarding pistol braces—begins to enter a “gray area” above 13.5″. Above 13.5″ begins “to enter shoulder stock area.” (His words. I believe this has to do with the “comfortableness” aspect.) On an AR-15, the “length of pull” for the Blade is approximately 13.13″, so no issues there. But if you use the Blade on a firearm that requires a large adapter of some sort, please make sure that you only use the dimples up to the point that you remain below the 13.5″ length. Stay below 13.5″ and according to ATF, it’s okay to shoulder a Shockwave Blade.

So there you have it. Anything you read to the contrary on a web forum, social media site, or industry blog is simple misinformation by people who are not being completely honest.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by SFCUSARET:
The main thing is not to keep writing letters or call the ATF for every little clarification.

Good advice. Unfortunately, there are two groups who will not follow it: Those who don’t read advice here, and those who will think, “Don’t tell me what to do! I know how to deal with those people, and I will regardless of what anyone else says.”

So if any new information about this subject comes up do you want to hear about it sigfreund? Or are you going to keep posting this over and over again?

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
So if any new information about this subject comes up do you want to hear about it sigfreund? Or are you going to keep posting this over and over again?

It was a simple way of reiterating my opinion on the issue of continuing to ask a question that most of us have already received a satisfactory answer for.

But to expand on my opinion, what struck me was that your information was not something that just came up; it was in response to an active question, and it’s asking the same question over and over again of an agency like the ATF that I believe is a poor idea.

The “brace” question was evidently originally asked by a company that was thinking of producing the item. They obviously had a legitimate reason for asking whether it would be legal for their customers to use as they had in mind. It would have been foolish to spend the money to bring the item to market without some assurance that the ATF wouldn’t just ban attaching it to an AR-type pistol. The answer they received should have been the end of the questioning. It didn’t just say that the SIG brace was okay, it provided a reasonable rationale that would apply to any such device.

Good enough, however, wasn’t sufficient for another company. The question was asked again, and we saw the result: The agency not only flip-flopped and ended up going 180° from the original ruling, but it established a completely new precedent. It wasn’t attaching the device to a pistol that made it subject to NFA regulation as most knowledgeable observers would have expected, it was how the gun was used. That “how it was used” ruling was a complete change from previous ATF rulings and which was clearly stated in the original response. Although its implications were largely ignored by most of us, it was no different than if the ATF had ruled that firing a pistol while holding it with two hands turned the gun into an NFA item (!).

The flip-flopped answer was then challenged and again with good reason and with no real risk of making things worse for us. At worst the ATF would have just stuck to its guns and said their ruling stood as rendered. Surprisingly, though, the agency reversed itself a second time and we were then back to where we were in the beginning when they said it was okay to “shoulder” a pistol equipped with an arm brace. And therefore that should have been the end of the questions, IMO, because we saw what happened when people kept picking at the answer the previous time.

We all have opinions on things like this, and that’s mine. If we let sleeping dogs lie, there’s no chance that they will jump up and bite us on the butt.

In fairness to you, though, I will add one thing. When I read your post about your call, I overlooked the “our customers” bit. I did not realize you were a representative of a company that makes a “brace” and that you were clarifying the ruling’s applicability to your product. I still believe that the ATF statement was clear enough that it didn’t need to be questioned, but I do understand an abundance of caution by others who might not want any unpleasant surprises later. I will nevertheless point out that if a written ruling can be changed with the stroke of a pen as it was earlier, it’s even easier to change a verbal opinion rendered in a phone conversation.

sigfreund

quote:

In fairness to you, though, I will add one thing. When I read your post about your call, I overlooked the “our customers” bit. I did not realize you were a representative of a company that makes a “brace” and that you were clarifying the ruling’s applicability to your product. I still believe that the ATF statement was clear enough that it didn’t need to be questioned, but I do understand an abundance of caution by others who might not want any unpleasant surprises later. I will nevertheless point out that if a written ruling can be changed with the stroke of a pen as it was earlier, it’s even easier to change a verbal opinion rendered in a phone conversation.

I copied and pasted a release from KAK industries.Hit the link and you can see THEY were clarifying the issue with the ATF.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: wcb6092,

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
I copied and pasted a release from KAK industries.Hit the link and you can see THEY were clarifying the issue with the ATF.

So, let me ask one last question to try to clarify the situation: What you posted above without any lead-in other than the link was not your comment, but rather a manufacturer’s that you have no association with—correct?

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
I copied and pasted a release from KAK industries.Hit the link and you can see THEY were clarifying the issue with the ATF.

So, let me ask one last question to try to clarify the situation: What you posted above without any lead-in other than the link was not your comment, but rather a manufacturer’s that you have no association with—correct?

Copied, pasted and link provided. Just like many threads on this forum. If you click on the link I provided you will see that this entire entry is from KAK industries. I had zero input into what is printed. I just assumed people would see the link and know,I just copied and pasted it,maybe I should have explained it better.

Here is the link again:http://shockwavetechnologies.com/site/?p=3524

Thank you.