Closed a deal on an HK53 - Page 3
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Closed a deal on an HK53

  1. #21
    Junior Member

    Join Date : Jan 2016
    Posts : 42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shattered Mind View Post
    Whaaaat? Granted, I may have left the active SOT scene back in the mid '90s, but you can't even get an SOT without an FFL. Pretty sure this just isn't right.
    James Bardwell mentioned the "loophole" in his "The Legal Side" column in SAR, back in the day. If you have back issues, take a look at June 2001 and it's on pages 23/24. I thought "hmmm.... really?" and sent a letter to Tech Branch. It took them a while to respond (the first response was "uhhh... hmm. we're gonna have to ask someone higher up the totem pole") but eventually I got a response back on ATF letterhead, hand signed by Curtis H. A. Bartlett, that says sears are NOT "firearms" under the GCA, and therefore an FFL is not required to deal in them as long as you comply w/ all the other NFA rot.

    If you're interested, shoot me a PM with your email address and I'll scan and send.

  2. #22
    Member

    Join Date : Apr 2012
    Posts : 63
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Will post pics upon arrival. Looking for an MP5 now.

  3. #23
    Junior Member

    Join Date : Jan 2016
    Posts : 12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwiggins View Post
    James Bardwell mentioned the "loophole" in his "The Legal Side" column in SAR, back in the day. If you have back issues, take a look at June 2001 and it's on pages 23/24. I thought "hmmm.... really?" and sent a letter to Tech Branch. It took them a while to respond (the first response was "uhhh... hmm. we're gonna have to ask someone higher up the totem pole") but eventually I got a response back on ATF letterhead, hand signed by Curtis H. A. Bartlett, that says sears are NOT "firearms" under the GCA, and therefore an FFL is not required to deal in them as long as you comply w/ all the other NFA rot.

    If you're interested, shoot me a PM with your email address and I'll scan and send.
    Even if they aren't firearms and don't require an FFL you do have to have an FFL to pay the SOT as a dealer or manufacturer. Even a C&R FFL holder can't pay the SOT, it has to be a dealer or manufacturer. So the idea that you can deal in sears without an FFL may be technically true but its not practically true. I suppose you could deal in them paying the transfer tax both ways each time.....no need for an FFL but unable to get an SOT....Special Occupational Tax for dealer or manufacturer only. (maybe importer but still not there).

    Frank

  4. Remove Advertisements
    HKPro.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #24
    Member

    Join Date : Apr 2012
    Posts : 63
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Whatever the case, I am an 01/03, so I'm not too concerned about the sidebar. :)

  6. #25
    Junior Member

    Join Date : Jan 2016
    Posts : 42
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BiffJ View Post
    Even if they aren't firearms and don't require an FFL you do have to have an FFL to pay the SOT as a dealer or manufacturer.
    I see that there is a blank for an FFL on the SOT tax return. I'd be interested (but not $500 interested right now) to see what happens if I tried to pay the SOT without having an FFL. Perhaps if there's a year where I've got $500 that I can't think of ANYTHING else to do with it, I'll give it a shot. The price of failure is actually $0, because if they won't take it they'd have to refund me. Conversely, I could be an SOT for a year.

  7. #26
    Senior Member
    nerdbrain's Avatar
    Join Date : Jan 2016
    Location : New Mexico/Nevada
    Posts : 103
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dwiggins View Post
    I see that there is a blank for an FFL on the SOT tax return. I'd be interested (but not $500 interested right now) to see what happens if I tried to pay the SOT without having an FFL. Perhaps if there's a year where I've got $500 that I can't think of ANYTHING else to do with it, I'll give it a shot. The price of failure is actually $0, because if they won't take it they'd have to refund me. Conversely, I could be an SOT for a year.
    I would assume you'd get a nice letter advising that you didn't fill in the blank for the FFL and that you should fill it in and resubmit your forms. Either that, or a letter that simply rejects your form.

  8. #27
    Unrepentant HKHolic
    Shattered Mind's Avatar
    Join Date : Jan 2007
    Location : North Roller Coast
    Posts : 10,201
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nerdbrain View Post
    I would assume you'd get a nice letter advising that you didn't fill in the blank for the FFL and that you should fill it in and resubmit your forms. Either that, or a letter that simply rejects your form.
    That's about all I see. You lose a stamp and use of $500 for whatever amount of time it takes to get the refund.
    45acp... turning human garbage into useful fertilizer since 1911

    Auf gebeginning to fixin der gun mit grosse busen of der schpritzin lubrication allen over derfukin platz, mit das squirtin and squeezin oil in allen fukinholes.
    Ja, und racken und strokin das bolt as if gecrazygoing, yanken dat handle bak und forth, zwei hunnert times, ja?
    Ist neue, und its needing some brekkin in.
    Zo, BREKKIN ZEFUKIN THING IN!


    Certified MM leghumper...

  9. #28
    Junior Member

    Join Date : Jan 2016
    Posts : 12
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    As an FFL 07 / Class 2 SOT I've had them kick back my SOT payment because the number was wrong....or rather because they thought it was wrong. Silly computers. If they're not happy with the FFL number or anything else on the form they kick it back. This is especially true now where the ATF has hired contractors to pre scan all the NFA forms prior to submission to the examiners. The license branch is also doing prescreens on the forms and anything not thought correct gets sent back. A friend left his FFL number off his SOT payment form and it came back.
    Point here is that you can send in money if you want but even doing so and even if it got approved it would mean nothing. ATF makes mistakes all the time but we can't. I've gotten forms back for Pre 86 Dealer samples and even a couple Post 86 dealer samples that were not stamped with the required limitations but it doesn't make them transferable. Mistakes on their part do not become permissions for you. Send away and see how long it takes to get a refund.....

    Didn't mean to drift off the post but thought it worth sharing some info gained by years of dealing with NFA and license branch.

    Frank

  10. #29
    Senior Member
    nerdbrain's Avatar
    Join Date : Jan 2016
    Location : New Mexico/Nevada
    Posts : 103
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BiffJ View Post
    ATF makes mistakes all the time but we can't.
    I remember reading somewhere about somebody who got a form 1 approved to build a machinegun just a couple years ago. When the ATF realized the mistake they quickly voided that form.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Sponsored Links

 
 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •