quote:

ATF has determined that this additional marking requirement for a maker is burdensome and unnecessary, and that it does not enhance public safety. The requirement is burdensome and unnecessary because individuals must stamp their name, city, and state onto the frame or receiver of the firearm, which may be crowded with existing markings from the original manufacturer. Further, many makers do not have the necessary equipment to stamp their own firearms in a manner that satisfies § 479.102, thus imposing a burden to pay for services from a gunsmith or other individual to meet such requirements. As noted, ATF requires the existing firearm to have been marked with the name of the original manufacturer, and the manufacturer's city, state, and a serial number. Moreover, a maker must include their name and other identifying information on the Form 1 application and ATF then retains that information in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record (“NFRTR”).[5]

27 CFR 479.63, 479.101.

This proposed rule would not affect an NFA firearms maker who manufactures a firearm from raw materials not regulated by the GCA. Such firearms lack existing manufacturer markings and serial numbers. Those firearms would continue to be marked by the maker as required under § 479.102. Thus, all NFA firearms would still be properly marked in accordance with NFA requirements.

This rule therefore proposes to amend § 479.102(b)(3) to authorize persons who make an NFA firearm by remanufacturing or altering an existing firearm to adopt the original manufacturer's markings already on the underlying firearm. The new language would merely extend exceptions to the marking requirements already contained within § 479.102(b)(3). Specifically, this rule would amend § 479.102(b)(3) by adding a new paragraph (iv) to address makers of firearms that are remanufactured or altered from existing firearms. The new exception would provide that “[m]akers that remanufacture or alter an existing firearm may adopt the serial number or other identifying markings previously placed on the firearm .[if the markings otherwise meet the requirements of this section."

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
The engraving, and the CLEO notification requirement, I'd really like to see go away.

quote:

Originally posted by jed7s9b:
This is good for everyone. No one wants to buy a weapon with someone else’s info conspicuously engraved on it. We’re all going die one day and all of those weapons will be sold or destroyed. It’s much easier to return that SBR to a pistol and get a good price for it than selling an NFA weapon.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It's on a separate form, if I'm not mistaken. I've never done a Form 4, but I'm about to, and I would be willing to wait a bit, to see if these changes come to pass.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

I thought once an NFA, always an NFA, no? Sure, you can change the configuration, but that doesn’t remove a firearm from the NFA registry.