One of our readers tipped us off to a worrisome trend in Connecticut. Transfers for firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) have always been slow, but in the last few months things have started coming back down to a reasonable waiting time. That is, for most of the country. For those living in the Nutmeg State it seems that the ATF might be deliberately slowing down the processing of NFA paperwork in order to more accurately discern whether the guns being registered are, in fact, legal to own there . . .
What the Federal government is doing is meddling in state affairs is another discussion, but for now it looks like things will be slowing down — again — for CT gun owners.
From CT Gun Talk:
Things are gonna be slow with CT NFA for some time. CT.GOV got some butthurt going on and made some angry phone calls. ATF is triple checking any SBR or manufacturing applications. Cans seems to be good to go, but they are being slightly delayed. Apparently there have been several attempts to SBR some guns that cant be SBRed. Also the NFA branch is being extra careful with ANY state with any type of AWB. This should not affect dealers or manufacturers (07s) in any way, just the end users.
Gun control by bureaucracy? Using Federal “inefficiencies” to deter people from owning legal firearms? We report, you deride.
Well, if you believe everything you read, it would seem that CT’s .gov is causing the slowdown, not NFA branch.
Who knows, if ATF can do it in CT, what’s to say they won’t apply the same technique to the other 49 states (or is is 55?).
CT’s have my sympathy as I know the pain. Do you have any idea how F&*^^$% difficult it was to get an approved form 1 in Cook County IL?
My SBR Form 1 for WA is way overdue. Possibly a good thing, as ATF has been denying them outright for a few weeks now due to some “confusion” in the WA SBR law. Seems like maybe they’re keeping them in a holding pattern for the time being until things are cleared up one way or the other. At this point, I’m expecting it to be denied, though. I must concede that I think the ATF’s and, now, some of the WA legislators’ and lawyers’ opinions on what is and isn’t legal under the law is correct and that manufacturing/assembling/making an SBR is not legal in WA at current.
Times are definitely up again, though not as bad as they were. My form 1 for a SBR was 90 days, one form 4 was 101 days (but approved on Memorial Day), and the other one was about 120 days. I wish they would get for 4 e-file back up.
You could transfer it to a local smith, have the smith “build” the SBR, then transfer it back to you. You’ll need a form 4, which is even slower here than a form 1. But you’ll be legal.
I’m just glad I got my AR-15 and Scorpion done before the ATF changed its mind. But I will have to go the gunsmith & transfer route when I get my 805 Bren, since I want to be able to swap a short barrel on it for 300BLK fun.
NFA items in Connecticut? Damn, didn’t even realize that was legal until this article and looking it up.
I think the issue is this: in CT, people can still freely buy and sell non-neutered ‘pre-ban’ (mfgr’d before late 1994) AR’s, AK’s etc. When an owner of a pre-ban decides he wants to SBR his rifle, the ATF considers it the creation of a new weapon, although CT law says nothing on that subject. So the ATF is investigating whether or not shortening the barrel of a legal pre-ban rifle makes it into an illegal newly made post-ban rifle, from what I gather.
This is not quite right. You are confusing the maker of a NFA item with the manufacturer. These are two different things when a form 1 is filed. If you “make” a SBR, you are not the manufacturer.
Pre-ban guns are good to go. They are still pre-ban after you SBR them.
Small and hopelessly liberal, CT is a perfect test bed for all kinds of anti-gun experiments. I keep waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Which is why, after 22+ years in CT, we are permanently relocating to The Gunshine State. And I will be immediately informing the ATF that my NFA items are no longer in CT.
T minus three days and counting…..
Looks like wait times are trending up in general. Form 4s were tickling sub 90 days but are now regularly clocking in at 120 days plus.
I wonder if all that OT they were throwing at the back log has been knocked back some.
Weaponized bureaucracies. That’s the trade mark of this administration, so should anyone be surprised?
Well I’m 60 days into a sbr f1 via a trust in CT. With the mount of shit I had to go through to get this far these mofos better not be delaying it further. To say I’m mad would be an understatement.
Once I actually get my paperwork I’ll give a full write up of the process. Or maybe I’ll send it in tomorrow…
ATF’s role is not to throttle assessment or provision of the stamp. They are there to process, and this is just another example of how the process has become their duty as opposed to ACTUAL PROTECTION, which they cannot provide (no one can, no, shut up).
So what happens when you wear out your barrel? Do you have to get the exat same length and width for a legal replacement? A worn out 20″ HBAR must be replaced by a 20″ hbar?
So if technology improved you couldn’t replace your 20″ hbar
with the new (20″ xbar).
Or go to a lighter barrel to save weight or money?
Or get a longer 24″
or the same 20″ but with a different flash/comp/supressor welded on the end?
Or when you wear out the barrel, are you just screwed and have to retire the rifle?
16″ or longer = Do as you please. Replace it as many times as you want, with whatever you want.
15.99″ or less = 200.00 tax stamp. You can go no shorter than the submitted length. If you shoot a barrel out, replace it with the same length. You can float between the length you submitted for, or longer, BUT, you have to be able to easily return it to submitted lenght, and caliber.
Red is correct and this has been discussed at length in conjunction with the Sig MPX roll-out. The modularity of the MPX allows for barrel swapping so those who choose to register as SBR are considering doing so with a stated 4″ barrel, the shortest Sig plans to sell. Then you can upsize to the planned 6″ as well as the available 8″ and anything in the future which might be sub16″. That assumes you buy the pistol with the 4″ barrel or can buy the 4″ kit eventually.
Re: the photo of the “Masterpiece” that accompanies this article… We finally have an answer to the question, “Can someone make a gun uglier than a Glock?” The answer is “absolutely”.
I mean, I get the appeal of a utilitarian gun, but damn. That looks like it was assembled from items found in a Harbor Freight dumpster.
We’re a CT based Suppressor manufacturer (Alpha Dog Silencers) and have been dealing with this issue for the past month. Local ATF field office had no idea that NFA traffic was “suspended pending legal review of CT state law” until we called and inquired. They still have not received a reply to their inquiry to the NFA branch and have contacted us 2x asking if we’ve heard anything further.
After pushing the NFA branch for info a dozen times over the past few weeks we finally where told the following via email…
” Currently we are holding applications to register/transfer items in CT until our legal counsel completes their review of the state law. Please tell your applicants/customers to not worry as we are just taking precautionary measures to ensure accuracy in our records. As soon as we are given the green light, approvals/processing will resume. We have not been given a time frame as to when this will take place. We are working day to day awaiting the go ahead on the matter.”
We where then told via a phone conversation with an NFA examiner that the review of State law is very typical, but usually is complete without any dealers/consumers knowing within 2-3 days. CT and WA review has been ongoing for over a month. The examiner said that he and other NFA examiners are expecting the “go ahead” to continue processing NFA paperwork within a few days (this was Wednesday 6/24). Rhetoric? Maybe. But we do get the impression that every ATF and/or NFA representative we speak with is equally annoyed with the inner workings of their department.
Comments are closed.