[wchiang]

Making H&K Briefcase Question ***ATF Letter Response on page 3***

So I took a look at the NFA Handbook, and from what I can tell, it doesn't really seem to fall under NFA. Surely there must be a legal reason somewhere to explain why people aren't trying to make any. I'm interesting in throwing the UMP in there if not for just another carrying case, then funny stares at the range.

However, I seem to recall that there was a specific reason why you can't make them. Any thoughts?

 

[edman99]

I know of no legal reason, at least on a federal level, that you can't make them. However, if one uses one by placing a firearm inside it for the purpose of shooting it, the briefcase would need AOW registration prior to doing so.

 

[wchiang]

Thanks! I did a bit more research and called the ATF. Falls under AOW with a $200 manufacture tax on Form 1.

 

[edman99]

Sounds like a neat project. I've always thought it shouldn't be too difficult.
Keep us posted on your progress.

 

[raymond-]

fine point: the AOW is never on the enclosure - always on the firearm. thus,
the Form 1 would be on the MP5K variant that is intended to be used within
the operational briefcase.

IF, however, you do not own or have in your possession such a firearm, you
are free to manufacture this enclosure with impunity. no restrictions.

 

[wchiang]

fine point: the AOW is never on the enclosure - always on the firearm. thus,
the Form 1 would be on the MP5K variant that is intended to be used within
the operational briefcase.

IF, however, you do not own or have in your possession such a firearm, you
are free to manufacture this enclosure with impunity. no restrictions.

I already have a Form 1 on it for the SBR. Would I have to file another Form 1 for AOW on the same firearm?

 

[AviatorDave]

I already have a Form 1 on it for the SBR. Would I have to file another Form 1 for AOW on the same firearm?

That was my question as well. An SP89 must be registered as an AOW to be carried in the op briefcase. But if you have an MP5K, does the sear override the need for AOW status? It would seem odd to have both a form 4 and AOW status on the same gun, but I can see how it might be like a 2-stamp gun in the case of an MP5SD, or a 3 stamp if you also want it SBRd to shoot without the sear.

 

[Trip]

this question has gone round and round... i still do not have an answer.. i was told on this board, that if you sbr a gun, then it trumps the aow status... (ex: sp89, remove stock but leave K grip on is ok??)

if that is the case, then why not the briefcase..... i am not comfortable w/ this advice though... i do not see how, you can have two separate nfa items with only one stamp.... Save for a mg, which makes sense.. It can be in any configuration with the sear pack installed.

 

[edman99]

fine point: the AOW is never on the enclosure - always on the firearm. thus,
the Form 1 would be on the MP5K variant that is intended to be used within
the operational briefcase.

Yes raymond thanks for your correction.

 

[raymond-]

I already have a Form 1 on it for the SBR. Would I have to file another Form 1 for AOW on the same firearm?

i keep waiting for someone to post an opinion letter from Tech Branch but
have not seen one the past 10 years. it's quite a head scratcher no matter
how you look at it: 1) it's a two stamper, or 2) SBR trumps AOW.

 

[straightgrain]

I would direct your question to the BATF. Specifically Rick Vasquez (sp?), head of the Firearms Technology Branch. Rick is a good guy and will shoot straight with you.

 

[wchiang]

I would direct your question to the BATF. Specifically Rick Vasquez (sp?), head of the Firearms Technology Branch. Rick is a good guy and will shoot straight with you.

Thanks! Letter sent! I will update when a response has been received!

 

[SuicideHz]

this question has gone round and round... i still do not have an answer.. i was told on this board, that if you sbr a gun, then it trumps the aow status... (ex: sp89, remove stock but leave K grip on is ok??)

if that is the case, then why not the briefcase..... i am not comfortable w/ this advice though... i do not see how, you can have two separate nfa items with only one stamp.... Save for a mg, which makes sense.. It can be in any configuration with the sear pack installed.

It's because you can have a foregrip on a rifle but not a pistol. no stock equals pistol, stock equals rifle. The SBR status doesn't trump anything- it changes the firearm to a rifle which can legally have the grip.

Do AOW stipulations mention semi-auto firearms? That would help the situation.

The laws that govern an SBR apply to semi-automatic rifles only. That's why a machine gun can have any length barrel, any type of stock etc. They aren't semi auto rifles and the SBR laws don't apply.

Now if AOW stipulates that "a firearm disguised for firing..." or something similar, then ANY firearm including a machinegun would have to be registered.

I thought most AOWs had a $5 tax? Or is that a $5 transfer and the $200 is manufacture?

 

[SuicideHz]

i keep waiting for someone to post an opinion letter from Tech Branch but
have not seen one the past 10 years. it's quite a head scratcher no matter
how you look at it: 1) it's a two stamper, or 2) SBR trumps AOW.

You don't need a tech letter.

If you have the situation where you have an SP89 PISTOL. You want to put a forward grip on it? Then it has to be registered as an AOW because a pistol with a forward grip is an AOW.

If you have an SBR which is a rifle, you can put any grip on the front you want- it's a rifle, not a pistol. Again, SBR doesn't "trump" any other designation. Having an SBR though means it's NOT a PISTOL and wouldn't ever fall under any categories that pistols do.

 

[wchiang]

I thought most AOWs had a $5 tax? Or is that a $5 transfer and the $200 is manufacture?

The latter:
$200 Manufacture: Form 1
$5 Transfer: Form 4

 

[Trip]

still clear as mud

 

[AviatorDave]

The latter:
$200 Manufacture: Form 1
$5 Transfer: Form 4

Yep. Got the forms right here. And I HATE the fact that it costs another $200 just to be able to shoot my MP5 WITHOUT the sear. Ridiculous.

 

[raymond-]

You don't need a tech letter.

If you have the situation where you have an SP89 PISTOL. You want to put a forward grip on it? Then it has to be registered as an AOW because a pistol with a forward grip is an AOW.

If you have an SBR which is a rifle, you can put any grip on the front you want- it's a rifle, not a pistol. Again, SBR doesn't "trump" any other designation. Having an SBR though means it's NOT a PISTOL and wouldn't ever fall under any categories that pistols do.

uhh.....that logic isn't making sense....

an SP-89 Form 1ed as an SBR allows the rifle stock to be removed, the K-grip
installed/remain, yet allows it to be legal. this means that the SBR status
does trump the AOW.

at issue here is whether the SBR configuration allows the reman'd pistol's [sic]
shoulder stock to be removed and placed within the enclosure of the
operational briefcase.

<.....> Now if AOW stipulates that "a firearm disguised for firing..." or something similar, then ANY firearm including a machinegun would have to be registered. <....>

if you read the CFR, you'll see that this is how the legal definition of AOW is written....yet the
reality is that machine guns are not being required to be reclassed as AOWs.

 

[xtphp1]

In the case of the HK operational briefcase, it will not work with the stock on the gun. So putting a SP89 in the case will make it an AOW. Putting a "K" grip on the gun outside the case is an AOW. Putting a AOW SP89 (gun with "K" grip) in the case wouldn't change anything because it's still an AOW. Putting a stock on the gun with or without a "K" grip will give you an unregistered SBR. If you want the stock on the SP89 you will have to register it as a SBR. If you want to cover all the bases, send in another form for $5 to get it AOWed and your good. Or get a sear and trump it all. Then you don't have to do anything.

 

[SuicideHz]

uhh.....that logic isn't making sense....

an SP-89 Form 1ed as an SBR allows the rifle stock to be removed, the K-grip
installed/remain, yet allows it to be legal. this means that the SBR status
does trump the AOW.

at issue here is whether the SBR configuration allows the reman'd pistol's [sic]
shoulder stock to be removed and placed within the enclosure of the
operational briefcase.



if you read the CFR, you'll see that this is how the legal definition of AOW is written....yet the
reality is that machine guns are not being required to be reclassed as AOWs.

I'm just guessing that an SBR has to have a stock.

Nice house.