jcloud Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:13 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:13 PM So as some of you may have seen, I posted a thread on getting fingerprints done, due to my Form 1 CLEO signature request being approved. However, I received some harrowing news today that may interest many of the individuals on here who are interested in getting an SBR. The full story: This past Monday, I sat down with the Chief of Police for my town and formally requested (in writing and in person) that he sign my ATF Form 5320.1 for the manufacture of a short barreled rifle. After presenting him with a nice packet which included copies of not only the Form 1's to be signed, but also a copy of the law, he agreed to sign the form after a short background check on me (which I wholly understand). After several days, all seemed to be going well, until he personally called me back today. As he hadn't ever had to sign a Form 1 before, and due to the novelty of the law, he decided to call the BATFE's office and speak with an Examiner/Inspector on the legality of the law, and ensure that both his interpretation and mine were as they appeared on paper. They were not. The individual he spoke with stated that while the law technically did allow for an SBR to be possessed in Illinois, the intent of the law was not to allow as such. The law was only intended for individuals who were looking to collect antique/older firearms, not for the creation or possession of new, non-antiquated SBR's. After a brief argument with the Examiner/Inspector, and a formal request for a ruling, the conversation ended. Deciding to not let this deter him, he brought up the matter to the Sheriffs and COP's attending the local drug task force meaning, in order to determine what they had found on the matter, as many of them lived in larger cities/towns where this is more common. The results were the same. Nearly all of them who had encountered a Form 1 signature request and whom had contacted the BATFE were told by the agency, that despite some people being approved initially (the majority of whom were trust holders), the BATFE did not feel that the legal loophole created by Illinois law was intended to allow for the manufacture or transfer of non-antique SBR's to a normal citizen. After contacting me, he politely stated that until case law or a formal decision was actually issued by the BATFE on the matter, he would not sign it. He stated that he had no issue with me going to another CLEO, or bypassing him altogether with the trust route, but that without a formal ruling he could not sign something that he had been told by the BATFE to be illegal. So that's where it stands. I know many on here have applied for this, and some have in fact been approved. I simply caution you that if the BATFE issues a ruling stating they will not allow SBR's, you'll be left with a very expensive paperweight to be scrapped. Note: If any of you have received a formal ruling from the BATFE on this matter contradicting what we have been told, I would very much appreciate you posting it for myself and other members on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patriots & Tyrants Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:24 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:24 PM Well bollox on the ATF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THE KING Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:28 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:28 PM Oh, I'm pretty sure sooner or later the ole Todd V will weigh in on this. Sick em Todd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcloud Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:36 PM Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:36 PM Oh, I'm pretty sure sooner or later the ole Todd V will weigh in on this. Sick em Todd Yes, let's attack the guy trying to follow the law and do the right thing. Something's wrong here. I'm almost positive Todd called the same people your CLEO called and got a completely different answer. I dunno. A formal, written ruling from the BATFE will assuage my mind one way or another. But the Chief has no reason to lie to me. And I'm not inclined not to believe him given the Bureau's previous antics with firearms laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave D Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:37 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:37 PM The sick em Todd should have been in purple.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mata777 Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:39 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:39 PM I'm saving up for 3 tax stamps, have all my form 1's filled out, and have been slacking off on getting them signed off by the Will county sherriff. I'm really concerned now. I'm glad I have a spare stripped lower that I can throw that 7.5 upper that I have on back order. I have a feeling we are about to get screwed by atf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcloud Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:41 PM Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:41 PM I'm saving up for 3 tax stamps, have all my form 1's filled out, and have been slacking off on getting them signed off by the Will county sherriff. I'm really concerned now. I'm glad I have a spare stripped lower that I can throw that 7.5 upper that I have on back order. I have a feeling we are about to get screwed by atf. Like I said, just be cautious. I wouldnt jump one way or another until an official ruling is issued. And I sure as heck hope that Examiner/Inspector was wrong and we can go about our lives enjoying our 2nd Amendment rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave D Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:43 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:43 PM jcloud, is the gun you are trying to do this for a curio or relic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:44 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:44 PM Why is the ATF weighing in on Illinois law? Obviously this is not a federal prohibition. Other states have no problem with it and Illinois law clearly allows for it.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcloud Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:44 PM Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:44 PM jcloud, is the gun you are trying to do this for a curio or relic? No. That was the issue. It was a Glock being converted to carbine with a K.P.O.S. system. Not a curio or relic which is what the examiner argued was the intent of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave D Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:45 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:45 PM If I read the IL law correctly, it has to be a curio or relic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mata777 Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:46 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:46 PM Oh, I'm pretty sure sooner or later the ole Todd V will weigh in on this. Sick em Todd Yes, let's attack the guy trying to follow the law and do the right thing. Something's wrong here. I'm almost positive Todd called the same people your CLEO called and got a completely different answer. I dunno. A formal, written ruling from the BATFE will assuage my mind one way or another. But the Chief has no reason to lie to me. And I'm not inclined not to believe him given the Bureau's previous antics with firearms laws. I agree, we need a formal written ruling. I think my blood pressure went up a considerable amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vezpa Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:47 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:47 PM If I read the IL law correctly, it has to be a curio or relic Not the way I read it. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave D Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:48 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:48 PM Im sure Todd v will chime in later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mata777 Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:50 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:50 PM I'm saving up for 3 tax stamps, have all my form 1's filled out, and have been slacking off on getting them signed off by the Will county sherriff. I'm really concerned now. I'm glad I have a spare stripped lower that I can throw that 7.5 upper that I have on back order. I have a feeling we are about to get screwed by atf. Like I said, just be cautious. I wouldnt jump one way or another until an official ruling is issued. And I sure as heck hope that Examiner/Inspector was wrong and we can go about our lives enjoying our 2nd Amendment rights. I'm crossing my fingers for the very same. I'm going to hold off on everything until we can get something official on paper. Have you asked for a written ruling? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:54 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:54 PM If I read the IL law correctly, it has to be a curio or relic That's not how it is written. IL law simply requires a curio and relics license in order to obtain an SBR. The other requirement is to be part of a legitimate war reenactment group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave D Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:58 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 06:58 PM If I read the IL law correctly, it has to be a curio or relic That's not how it is written. IL law simply requires a curio and relics license in order to obtain an SBR. The other requirement is to be part of a legitimate war reenactment group. Ok, that makes since Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milhouse86 Posted July 12, 2013 at 07:07 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 07:07 PM mmm I hope I did not miss out because I did not go for it right away. I will be interested to see where this goes. Where do you live? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcloud Posted July 12, 2013 at 07:16 PM Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 07:16 PM mmm I hope I did not miss out because I did not go for it right away. I will be interested to see where this goes. Where do you live? LaSalle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cm.stites Posted July 12, 2013 at 07:17 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 07:17 PM If I read the IL law correctly, it has to be a curio or relicmy opinion also and what ive been told by the local ffl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
armored223 Posted July 12, 2013 at 07:28 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 07:28 PM That is not how I read it because of the OR in place of an AND in the law. My local SA gave the thumbs up that he interpreted the law as if you have CR OR renactor you may possess SBR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Posted July 12, 2013 at 07:28 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 07:28 PM If I read the IL law correctly, it has to be a curio or relic That's not how it is written. IL law simply requires a curio and relics license in order to obtain an SBR. The other requirement is to be part of a legitimate war reenactment group. Ok, that makes since Keep it mind the requirements are an OR thing. You need to fulfill one of the two or both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nic Posted July 12, 2013 at 07:30 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 07:30 PM Or we could just set up IL Carry as a reenactment group of the ongoing War in Chicago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcloud Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:04 PM Author Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:04 PM Or we could just set up IL Carry as a reenactment group of the ongoing War in Chicago. This. You win best post of thread! Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:05 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:05 PM That is not how I read it because of the OR in place of an AND in the law. My local SA gave the thumbs up that he interpreted the law as if you have CR OR renactor you may possess SBR. +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:19 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:19 PM To play the Devil's advocate, we all like to jump on the legislative intent of a law, and that appears to be what that ATF if doing now... Yes, the black and white wording of the law says one thing but the ATF is now teetering on the question of legislative intent as a whole, I don't believe it's their job to question that but they appear to be... We obviously know what the authors intent was, but what was the intent of the legislators body as a whole when they voted for the law... I suspect that the ATF was 'informed' of 'someone's' opinion of legislative intent by 'The State of Illinois' and that is likely why we are seeing some questions asked by them now... I would hope that this can be clarified (in our favor) without lawsuits but I doubt it if the ATF has now taken this stance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tvandermyde Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:31 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:31 PM On it. Been on it for a week since I was made aware. Attachments to follow. They need a clarification, but we will be fine Ted E Clutter Letter.pdf ATF.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaKoncepts aka CGS Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:36 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:36 PM This reintroduces my idea of the RRA PDS pistol or the Kriss Vector pistol for home defense. I dare not call them SBR's but they would be the next best thing to a SBR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
202s Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:36 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:36 PM If I remember reading on this forum correctly the Il. Supreme court ruling in the Diggins case about what a "case" was stated that you had to interpite the plain english meaning of a word. Or means or. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockerXX Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:44 PM Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 08:44 PM On it. Been on it for a week since I was made aware. Attachments to follow. They need a clarification, but we will be fine Ted E Clutter Letter.pdf ATF.pdf Good to hear, hopefully they listen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.