ATF Form 1

[KTM530]

Hello,

I am seeking some advice. I just received my form 1 back from the ATF for a SBR. It was denied for the following reason-

Reason for Disapproval
Although RCW 9.91.190(2) Exempts the possession, transport, and transfer, it does not exempt your request to make(manufacture) an SBR? Therefore you are unable to make the type SBR in Washington state; Refund in process? TEC

Did I make a mistake somewhere on the form with specific "language'? It is my understanding that many have had form 1s approved without issue, so I wonder why mine was denied. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

John

Read More

 

[Eludnu]

I see I may have added this to the wrong section. Should this go to the NFA section?

Affirmative. While this is a "legal" question, the input of NFA section members would be the better fit.

Not sure how to move it short of a delete and repost....

 

[jbett98]

Read this on AR-15.com

Posted: 8/6/2014 2:36:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2014 1:15:26 PM EDT by Rampage]
Just spoke with a person over at BATFE regarding 2 of my 3 electronic Form 1's didn't have the name of my trust in field 3.
So he told me he will just rescind the two forms and have me resubmit.
Then he told me he had just received information from WA firearm division not to approve any Form 1's due to the language in the SB 5956 saying individuals are not allowed to manufacture SBR.
The BATFE person then said in their definition, if you are allow to possess SBR then you are allowed to manufacture into SBR.
But he said they will have to wait for an official ruling on this so all form 1's are on hold, but still recommend to keep on submitting Form 1's.

Update 1: On 8/7/2014 one of my Form 1 got approved.

Update 2: On 8/8/2014 I called Dana Pickles and asked him if he can explain why that Form 1 was approved and yet he said all WA Form 1 are on hold.
He said as far as he knows, all WA SBR Form 1's are still on hold.
Then he said today is his last day at BATFE and perhaps there are new info and they didn't bother to update him since he is leaving.
Dana also said just because BATFE has approved the Form 1 that doesn't mean it is legal for us to "manufacture" SBR since in the eyes of WA that is still illegal.

Oh well.... anyone else got their Form 1's approved either on or after 8/7?

 

[SCARed]

That's VERY interesting....
There have been hundreds, if not thousands of SBRs approved in WA state. And TEC is Ted Clutter, one of the managers of NFA branch. He is who approved my SBR, in Dec '14.

ETA: I'm seeing on ARF, a new thread with several people over the past couple days being denied. I'm guessing the OP is one of them?

2nd ETA: Looks like someone has already emailed Ted Clutter about the recent change. We'll have to wait and see it looks like.

 

[IronMonster]

A real bummer. I am 28 days since efiling for a SBR and was expecting approval any day. I am going to keep my fingers crossed but its not looking good.

 

[IronMonster]

The following image is off Aero Precisions page on facebook.

 

[Classic]

Ted Clutter is their section chief, he manages the other examiners. I take it he was the idiot that rejected?
Turns out he started a mass rejection last night........

 

[SCARed]

His name was on all the rejections. My guess is once the normal examiner deems it rejected, it passes to his desk for final disposition.

 

[dsolie]

A lot of people freaking out on all the local forums....

http://www.waguns.org/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=55990

 

[IronMonster]

I was in Rainer Arms this morning and there was a guy in there who had two form 1 SBR's come back rejected last night.

I filed mine on the 2nd of May. I am assuming it will get kicked back like all the others.

I bought an assembled lower from Rainer this morning for them to SBR on a form 4. With the stamp the lower came to $900 ($594 for the lower, $100 for their SBR build fee plus the ATF's $200) Most expensive lower I have ever bought by about double. Still cheaper than spending $2300 for one of their built SBR's though.

 

[IronMonster]

A lot of people freaking out on all the local forums....

http://www.waguns.org/viewtopic.php?f=41&t=55990

I clicked on that link and it takes me to WaGuns but says "topic does not exist"

 

[turbodiesel]

This is crappy news. I submitted my form 1 on 4/25...so I'm guessing that it will get denied in the next couple weeks

 

[SCARed]

Sounds like things are picking up on resolving this. Brian Blake, the author and original sponsor of the bill, is looking into things from the WA DOL side of things and how they got involved in the first place. Multiple emails, from multiple angles, have gone into the ATF as well.

 

[dsolie]

I clicked on that link and it takes me to WaGuns but says "topic does not exist"

Odd! I just tried it totally logged out and it still worked for me. To summarize, a lot of people over there are have been rejected. There is a person who's got a guy on the inside with some interesting information about the situation..

The next few weeks should be interesting.

 

[IronMonster]

Odd! I just tried it totally logged out and it still worked for me. To summarize, a lot of people over there are have been rejected. There is a person who's got a guy on the inside with some interesting information about the situation..

The next few weeks should be interesting.

That was on my phone, I got home and tried it from a real computer and it worked fine.

Sounds like a real mess.

 

[SCARed]

Here's the latest...

Quoted from Dawgfish over at ARF....

"So here is what I got from Brian Blake, the original sponsor of the bill.

A staff member at the DOL had a conversation with the ATF a few weeks back and the discussion centered on SB 5956, and lack of clarity and confusion about manufacturing SBR's. This person is not a policy maker, but apparently the ATF person may have taken it that way. The head of Washington DOL Firearms Division will be contacting the ATF to let them know that the conversation was not with a representative allowed to direct policy on behalf of Washington State.

The AG's office has not made any official statements on the bill at this time.

Also, the DOL did not advise the ATF to not approve the forms, nor did the AG's office. The DOL's position is that it isn't their position to interpret the laws, and that it is up to the ATF to make their own interpretation.

Also, Thanks RichM for sending me Ted Clutter's contact information and email addresses. Brian Blake and the DOL have that information now and they will contact Ted. The rest of you may want to not deluge Mr. Clutter with a bunch of emails. Brian says he will work on this. Please let him work through the process.

Thanks. "

 

[IronMonster]

Any new info anyone has come across?

 

[SCARed]

I haven't seen anything new.

 

[Fiorina]

I really hope this gets fixed. I bought a rifle with a pinned barrel extension for the sole purpose of removing it to make an SBR.
I really want to believe it was just an oversight in the language and not because that's how they wanted it. If it's the latter then I don't see it getting changed.

 

[IronMonster]

I was in Rainer Arms this afternoon and ask if they had heard anything about form 1 SBR's They told me that they had talked to the branch office and where told that a final decision was made (by whom or at what level I dont know) that assembling a SBR from parts is "manufacturing" which can only be done by a manufacturer and submitted on a form 2

So according to them, no more form 1 SBR's in Washington.