If a weapon is legal to buy then is subsequently redesignated as NFA

It happened before, the Street Sweeper and Striker 12 was reclassified as a Destructive Device and had to be registered.



This is from a government source and should not be subject to copyright....

http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2001-1.html



6 U.S.C. 5845(f)(2): DESTRUCTIVE DEVICE (Nonsporting shotgun having a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter)

The registration period for the USAS-12, Striker-12, and Streetsweeper shotguns will close on May 1, 2001.

ATF Ruling 2001-1

Pursuant to ATF Rulings 94-1 (ATF Q.B. 1994-1, 22) and 94-2 (ATF Q.B. 1994-1, 24), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) classified the USAS-12, Striker 12, and Streetsweeper shotguns as destructive devices under the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53. The NFA requires that certain "firearms" be registered and imposes taxes on their making and transfer. The term "firearm" is defined in section 5845 to include "destructive devices." The term "destructive device" is defined in section 5845(f)(2) as follows:

[T]he term 'destructive device' means . . . (2) any type of weapon by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel or barrels of which have a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, except a shotgun or shotgun shell which the Secretary finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes; . . .

The USAS-12, Striker 12, and Streetsweeper shotguns were classified as destructive devices pursuant to section 5845(f) because they are shotguns with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter which are not generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes.

Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7805(b), ATF. Ruls. 94-1 and 94-2 were issued prospectively with respect to the making, transfer, and special (occupational) taxes imposed by the NFA. Thus, although the classification of the three shotguns as NFA weapons was retroactive, the prospective application of the tax provisions allowed registration without payment of tax.

ATF has contacted all purchasers of record of the shotguns to advise them of the classification of the weapons as destructive devices and that the weapons must be registered. ATF has registered approximately 8,200 of these weapons to date.

Held, the registration period for the USAS-12, Striker-12, and Streetsweeper shotguns will close on May 1, 2001. No further registrations will be accepted after that date. Persons in possession of unregistered NFA firearms are subject to all applicable penalties under 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53.

Date signed: February 2, 2001

If regulations change on an NFA item, the ATF will have an amnesty period allowing registration. However some folks have found out their gun was declared contraband after the amnesty period is over or never got the memo at all. The 1950s DEWAT program had Thompsons, Chauchats and other machineguns welded and sold as non-gun Deactivated War Trophies thorugh ads in American Legion magazine and other venues. Then the Treasury decided that DEWATs were still machineguns, and allowed a short amnesty period allowing registration. There are probably DEWATs in the attics of folks unaware that they are in felonious possession of contraband, bought by a relative in the 1950s when it was legal and unaware that the program was reversed.

On the other hand, short barreled rifles made before 1934 (Marlin and Winchester trapper models made with barrel lengths of 12 or 14 inches) or shoulder stocked handguns made before 1946 (Luger or Mauser pistols especially) have been moved from Title II (NFA) to Title I (GCA) as curios and relic firearms, more likely to owned as collectibles than as weapons. And apparently ATF does not check whether guns formerly classed as Title II SBRs reclassed as Title I rifles or pistols were legally registered as Title II or were held as contraband.

You can't register a new DD shotgun? Or is it just those specific ones by name?

FIVETWOSEVEN said:

You can't register a new DD shotgun? Or is it just those specific ones by name?

Click to expand...

IIRC shotguns aren't generally registered as DDs. They are AOWs or SBSes depending on how they are originally configured and modified. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

1KPerDay said:

IIRC shotguns aren't generally registered as DDs. They are AOWs or SBSes depending on how they are originally configured and modified. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

Anything greater than 50 cal is considered a DD, except for black powder or shotguns. Shotguns are generally exempt from the NFA even though the caliber is greater than 50 cal because of the 'sporting purpose' clause. The Streetsweeper and the Striker 12 were no longer considered for 'sporting purposes' by the ATF and thus lost their 'sporting purpose' exemption are were reclassified as a destructive device.

Here is thread on DD or not DD.

http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-419807.html

It all depends on the circumstances.

The shotguns given as an example were previously legal, and then determined to be Destructive Devices.
New Destructive Devices can be registered. New SBR, SBS, AOWs, etc can also be registered. An amnesty could be created for any device considered one of the above that had previously been considered a title 1 firearm or was unregulated.
It would become a title 2 device however.It would also become illegal in states that didn't allow such a title 2 device by name. So for example a shotgun that is legal in a state that does not allow NFA Destructive Devices by name would then become illegal under state law if it became a Destructive Device even though the feds allow for a way to continue legal ownership through title 2 registration.
Federal registration of a Destructive Device as a resident of a state that does not allow Destructive Devices...No you won't be able to continue to own it.

If the device is considered a machinegun, new machineguns generally cannot be registered as of 1986.
The feds could not allow an amnesty in violation of the 1986 legislation, and so they would be illegal and you could not register them as a title 2 firearm. They would simply not be legal anymore.

So if the device was considered a Destructive Device like the shotguns, they could open up the ability to register them.
If the device was retroactively considered a machinegun like the Akins Accelerator you could not then properly register it under an amnesty as a machinegun because Congress outlawed new civilian machineguns in 1986.
So it would not be grandfathered, and would be a felony to own.

Prior to 1986 there was in fact several machinegun amnesties when the ATF opened the registry to unregistered illegally held machineguns, and not just specific ones, but any and all machineguns someone that illegally possessed them wanted to register.
Not knowing where they were did the government little good, and they only know where the legal ones are. So from a gun control perspective the greater good was served by figuring out where they were so they could be controlled under existing legislation and restrictions or have any future legislation (like confiscation or greater restrictions) effectively implemented, rather than them simply existing unaccounted for in society. So even though it would allow more guns on the registry, it would allow authorities control over guns they didn't even currently know the location of.

This scenario resulted in the humorous situation of some felons trying to register during machinegun amnesties, which in turn resulted in it being determined in the SCOTUS that only law abiding citizens could be punished by a registry, because if the information was used against a prohibited person then it violated his 5th Amendment by requiring self incrimination. To be legal under one law required self incrimination under another, so felons and prohibited persons could not be tried for NFA violations, only everyone else. (This was fixed later by saying the registration information would not be used to go after prohibited persons in the 1968 revisions to the 1934 NFA. The same revision that added Destructive Devices, amongst other things to the NFA.)



FIVETWOSEVEN said:

You can't register a new DD shotgun? Or is it just those specific ones by name?

Click to expand...

Those shotguns were declared illegal by being unregistered NFA items. The registration period was essentially allowing people to register something that was now illegal for them to possess without penalty. Registering it requires letting the ATF know you have something which you legally cannot have because it was outlawed.
What they are basically saying is anyone that tries to register after that date will not be allowed to register, and so when they attempt to do so and inform the ATF they are in illegal possession of the unregistered Destructive Device, the registration will be rejected. They may also get a visit and prosecution.

That is what the registration closing refers to. You could still freely go through the process to make or transfer a new Destructive Device, and it would be legal to acquire or make such a device.
But registration of an existing Destructive Device in your possession already would not retroactively make the illegal ownership of a Destructive Device you already had been in possession of legal, and would result in denial when one attempts to register it and perhaps punishment of prior (and due to denial current as well) illegal possession.
However since those shotguns also no longer are 'sporting' and considered Destructive Devices you will not be able to import one and register it as a new legal Destructive Device. So it kills the ability to even import a foreign made shotgun to register as a new Destructive Device.
Being declared Destructive Devices kills importation too.
If it is American made though and still made available by the manufacturer then you get your tax stamp and new Destructive Device.

You can register a shotgun as a destructive device. The assumption in doing so is that you would rebarrel it in a greater than 50 cal configuration. I could also register an AR-15 receiver as a destructive device if I wanted to put a (hypothetical) 20mm single shot upper on it.

How to Sell Striker 12?

Hello All;

I am a first time poster, I have searched this forum for an answer to how I should go about selling a registered Penn Arms fixed stock Striker 12.
I haven't found an answer.

I purchased the gun shortly before it was designated as a DD.
Went through the registration process so it's legal to own.
It has been fired about 100 times with trap loads and was then consigned to the safe and has set there for years.

I assume that the Striker would need to be transfered through a DD dealer.
Is there anyone out there who has successfully transfered a Striker?

What is the market for these?

Thank You
Bob 1900

bob1900 said:

Hello All;

I am a first time poster, I have searched this forum for an answer to how I should go about selling a registered Penn Arms fixed stock Striker 12.
I haven't found an answer.

I purchased the gun shortly before it was designated as a DD.
Went through the registration process so it's legal to own.
It has been fired about 100 times with trap loads and was then consigned to the safe and has set there for years.

I assume that the Striker would need to be transfered through a DD dealer.
Is there anyone out there who has successfully transfered a Striker?

What is the market for these?

Thank You
Bob 1900

Click to expand...

I believe it would have to go through a dealer that deals with NFA items.

SENTINEL ARMS CORP. STRIKER 12 is selling upwards of $2200
http://www.autoweapons.com/products/destructivedevices.html

IIRC shotguns aren't generally registered as DDs. They are AOWs or SBSes depending on how they are originally configured and modified. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Click to expand...

I have the USAS-12, Striker, Protecta, Street Sweeper shotguns in mind.

Regarding registration / amnesty once something has been declared a destructive device, keep in mind the ATF does not have to provide this. They could just as easily require forfeiture. They typically don't to avoid bad press, but it's within their powers to just declare something illegal and seize it.

Carl N. Brown wrote:

"Then the Treasury decided that DEWATs were still machineguns, and allowed a short amnesty period allowing registration."

Not true. "The Treasury" did not make that decision, Congress did when it passed the Gun Control Act of 1968 changing the definition of a machine gun to include deactivated guns. BATFE (and its predecessor agencies) have over the years made some bad decisions, some of them inexplicable on any rational terms, but they should not take the heat for what the law says. They have to obey the law just like they expect others to do.

The main reason for the change was that a man who claimed to be pro-gun and was later editor of the American Rifleman, Ashley Halsey, Jr., wrote a scare tactics article for the old Saturday Evening Post about how "his daughter" (four years old) bought a DEWAT by mail; with police permission he opened it up and fired it, then had it destroyed. His ranting, insane article on the "dangers" of those evil DEWATS by an NRA member and "friend" of gun rights destroyed the DEWAT program. He later supposedly said that only "sporting" guns should be legal and that the only "sporting" gun was a high quality English double barrel shotgun. Some "friend."

Jim

.....Is there anyone out there who has successfully transfered a Striker?.....

Click to expand...

bob1900,

Two ways to sell it; you can sell it to a person that lives in your state without going through a dealer, only need to fill out the Form 4 (F4) and have the buyer get finger printed get CLEO sign off then send F4 and other required paper work along with a check for $200 to the ATF and wait. Once the approved F4 comes back to you (about 6 months) you call the buyer and hand over the F4 and gun…easy as pie. Other way is out of state, needless to say this has to go through a dealer that deals in Destructive Devices (DDs). You fill out a F3 (tax free transfer) to the dealer (month or more wait), again the approved Form will come to you, once in hand you ship the gun to the dealer and your done. In both cases I make a copy of the approved Form for my records, everybody is always loosing things and I consider these my get out of jail free cards. Also the gun NEVER leaves your possession until the approved Form arrives; most people that would be interested in purchasing the Striker already know this, just FYI in case you get a “new” guy.

Additionally, you could sell it out-of-state through a non-SOT FFL holder, but the initial transfer to the dealer would be on a Form 4 with the accompanying transfer tax. Then the end buyer would pay another transfer tax on the Form 4 transfer from the dealer.

You could sell it through any number of existing boards, should you want to. As GE already pointed out, most of the folks that frequent those boards know the rules and those that don't can learn quickly.

There was a scare last year that was based in rumours that the ATF was about to declare Saiga 12 shotguns as "having no sporting purpose" and therefore DDs. That would have prohibited importation. But it didn't happen. Not to say it couldn't.

MasterSergeantA said:

There was a scare last year that was based in rumours that the ATF was about to declare Saiga 12 shotguns as "having no sporting purpose" and therefore DDs. That would have prohibited importation. But it didn't happen. Not to say it couldn't.

Click to expand...

Legislation was passed that prohibited them from doing so.
It was not a standalone piece of legislation, but was added on to and passed as part of other legislation.

Anyone that declared or enforced such a thing could no longer receive a paycheck.


The legislation essentially said that any gun already considered sporting and imported as of a specific date, January 2011 if I recall, could not be considered unsporting.
It was clearly in response to the Saiga shotgun.

Good to hear. Any idea what the law was called?

Copying from where it is mentioned many other places:

The "Fiscal Year 2012 Agriculture, Commerce/Justice/Science (CJS) and Transportation/Housing/Urban Development (THUD) Appropriations bills”. On November 18, 2011, this was passed by Congress, and signed into law by the President Obama.
The law reads as follows:
SEC. 541. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to pay the salaries or expenses of personnel to deny, or fail to act on, an application for the importation of any model of shotgun if–
(1) all other requirements of law with respect to the proposed importation are met; and
(2) no application for the importation of such model of shotgun, in the same configuration, had been denied by the Attorney General prior to January 1, 2011, on the basis that the shotgun was not particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes.

Click to expand...

So if in a given configuration it was already considered okay prior to January 1, 2011 then it couldn't be denied importation due to being considered unsporting by the ATF, and any such decision of enforcement results in no paycheck for them.
This was in response to the ATF Shotgun Study in January 2011 that quite strongly showed they were planning a ban on some shotguns.
This is of course was not a complete surprise, the ATF actually stated to some manufacturers years ago they would ban the Saiga 12 once someone made a large drum magazine for it, which kept some from making one for awhile.
That came and went in 2007-2008, and no ban was implemented. Until the Study showed the time had probably come. The ATF did a whole study justifying their next move.
And then this legislation was tucked into the budget, so we didn't get to see what it was.


However note that it is also part of a budget, and so likely expires and ceases to be in effect once a new budget for the same thing is passed.
So it may still be declared unsporting, and become a Destructive Device sometime in the future.

Such concerns have been increasing the price of what in 2004 was one of if not the least expensive semi-auto shotguns you could purchase new, and now they are more than triple as much. They were $199 new in 2004.

BATFE (and its predecessor agencies) have over the years made some bad decisions, some of them inexplicable on any rational terms, but they should not take the heat for what the law says. They have to obey the law just like they expect others to do.

Click to expand...

LOL since when?

Thanks for the information, Zoogster. I always learn something here.

jerkface, you have a point. I knew Brian Terry.