It's always amusing when someone makes the "I'm holier than thou" argument without having a single clue what my background and experience is with the FFL world, the alphabet or how closely I've been involved with the new alphabet rule making process.No, quite simply it's 15yrs of dealing with NFA stuff, reading and hearing about it from lawyers and the ATF themselves.
From your responses though, it certainly seems like this is all new to you and you're taking the most paranoid/conservative interpretation possible. But you do you. Just know that it is NOT the reality of the NFA world.
The only type of firearm that does not change configuration is a Machine gun. Once a machine gun, always a machine gun, until it is destroyed/cut per ATF regulation.
Great for a good chuckle, for sure.
"I've been doing it for years and the alphabet's recent weaponization and zero tolerance policies of late can't touch me." I'm quite sure most every FFL that recently had their licenses revoked under brandon's rule were extremely confident in their understandings and practices as well, but you do you!
When someone new to the issue is asking, I tend to try and do them the justice of providing info that is factual and in-line with the current climate... where gun owners are vilified and prospected for lawfully exercising their 2A rights while criminals "rights" are protected.. then leave it up to them to decide what level of risk they are comfortable with choosing.
With NFA's, the alphabet has never before come out and said the frame/receiver is the NFA. With SBR's, they did, which would may very well denote a clear change in approach and really should give any reasonable person a moment of pause of how exactly they are planning on handling SBR issues.
If you had watched the congressional hearings, you would also know that the senators tried to nail down the issue of exactly what the alphabet would consider constructive possession. The Diddler refused to answer their direct questions and basically left the issue as "constructive possession" being determined on a case-by-case basis. Not that diddleback is any authority on firearms or alphabet policy... he's just the director in name only... but such as it is, the standard for constructive possession remains ambiguous.
Regardless of what my own choices are, what I don't do it go around telling people that ask about the law is that how "I" choose to interpret and act on the laws are fully legal and they're good to do the same. I've seen others in this group trying to argue that, "if they don't actively enforce something... it's legal". Which is BS. "Legal" means that no law against it exists and there is no chance of prosecution. Not actively enforcing something is simply them letting you get away with it... until... they decide you no longer can.
Case in point. For decades, FFL's losing their licenses over unintentional clerical errors would have been wholly unreasonable and completely unheard of. Need I say more?
All that said, I fully acknowledge there are practices that aren't being actively enforced in the way that they "could" be and there is a lot of latitude in what a person can get away with... without an "unreasonable" amount of risk. My whole point is... be aware of what the law says, understand how it "may" affect you and choose for yourself accordingly.
In my mind... passing off, "this is what you can get away with" as "valid legal practice" is completely irresponsible. YMMV
Last Edited: