Jump to content

Benbow

Members
  • Posts

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

141 profile views

Benbow's Achievements

Member

Member (3/24)

  1. ITAR does not apply to handloaders, only machine powered loading operations. ITAR also does not apply to persons that are only assembling parts. There are lots of other exceptions to it as well, which, thanks to regualtory reform from trump two years ago took the sting out of it for FFLs not commercially producing machineguns. I'm oversimplifying, but it basically does not apply the way it did two years ago, and does not apply to handloaders. Also, I'm not saying that a person can buy silencers in IL for any willy nilly reason. I'm saying (1) a good chunk of handloaders technically need an 06 FFL, (2) an 06 FFL allows the holders, under Illinois law, to possess suppressors for business purposes, like what Winchester does, for testing ammo. I can think of other legitimate business purposes for an 06 to have a suppressor. If you don't want to test your handloaded ammo for its suppressor friendly capabilities, then don't. If others want to, let them. heck, until 3 years ago, in Arkansas it was legal to "possess" but not use a supressor, and 10000 people bought the things. Now they are completely legal. Do what you want.
  2. here is the simple truth on suppressors. Like ALL NFA items, its illegal for ATF to actually approve a Form 1/4 if its illegal for the registrant to actually possess the firearm. So, ipso facto, if ATF will actually approve the form, thats pretty good evidence that its legal to possess the item, even under state or local law. That being said, it is legal, in Illinois, under Illinois law, to possess a suppressor, by a Type 06 FFL, for purposes of testing. A Type 06 FFL is a license to "manufacture" ammunition. That is the reason that Olin/Winchester can have suppressors, and they do, I've seen them. If you want to get into the realm of technicality, if you reload ammo ONLY for yourself, no license is required. If you reload, at all, for someone else, like Uncle Bob, your buddy at the club, or the like, you technically need a Type 06 FFL, as (you may) owe federal excise tax (easily legally avoided) and you are actually technically manufacturing. This is also true if you cast lead bullets for your next door neighbor, or load blanks for the local VFW. Thus, in order to reload ammo for Uncle Bob (not yourself), and be legal, you need to spend $30, for a 3 year Type 06 FFL. This just so happens to be the same cost as a Type 03 C&R FFL, needed for SBRs. Now, once your legal with your reloading operation, assuming you reload for other people, under IL law, you can have a supressor, you just need to just through the standard NFA hoops. If your Type 06 FFL expires, you need to either get rid of the suppressor, or move it out of state, until you get another 06FFL. Is this worth your time and effort? That depends on you. Rilo and Mauserme, while well intentioned, are stopping their legal research at the halfway mark, and with respect to them, they are only 1/3 right, which means they are 2/3 wrong. Per public ATF records, there are about 1,000 registered silencers in Illinois. I would wager that over 800 of them are owned by non-governmental entities. Now, what is all of this back and forth worth to you? Exactly what you paid for it. If you have concerns, speak with a knowledgeable lawyer or appropriate dealer, in person, not on a web board. Generalizations on a web broad are just that, generalizations. While an approved Form 4 is a pretty good indicator that its legal, its also not a legal defense in IL, unlike, say, Missouri. While this exception may generally apply in IL, you may have a local prohibition, or not be able to get a Type 06 due to zoning.
  3. Then don't buy them. Other people who want to, and can, should. All NFA rules apply of course
  4. I am in Wood River, Madison County, Illinois. I'm in the processing of finalizing an explanation of IL law and what can get approved in IL, to post on my website, but bottom line, if you do what I tell you do do, I can most AOWs, many DDs, most SBRs, some SBS approved to just about anyone, and actually have. I can get suppressors approved to some people, if they are willing to do what is necessary to be legal, which, frankly is not a lot. The problem is, everyone has been told for so long that all NFA is illegal in IL, that they actually believe it. If there is something specific you want, PM me, and I can (1) tell you if its possbile and if so how, (2) if I can provide it, and if not who can, if I know, and (3) likely cost, either from me, or someone else.
  5. last time I checked, and maybe they fixed this now, you could not submit prints via e-file. So how does an individual, or for that matter, any non-FFL ./ non govt entity do an e-form 1/4
  6. No form 1, or any other NFA form, other than EF Form 3 (dealer to dealer) takes 15 to 18 days, and anyone that tells you otherwise has no NFA firearms. Not even a form 2, which does not require approval, is that fast. That being said, most of the SBRs I make and sell are AR15 type. For myself, I;ve done a lot, both before and since becoming a C2SOT
  7. for those interested, most recent Form 4 NFA transfer time for a SBR from dealer to individual 130 days, from mailing out to received back. Is it an improvement or a fluke? I don't know.
  8. here is the rub, look up the definition of "destructive device" If the shockwave is not a shotgun, and its not a rifle, and its not an AOW, .... and it has a bore over .50 inches (as 20 ga on up is)....
  9. so, the problem you have with "violent" v "non-violent" is that the state may not have been able to prove the alleged violence, the defendant, having spent thousands of dollars already on criminal defense, and missed dozens of days of work already, pleads guilty to a BS crime he didn't commit, simply because its cheaper, and you want to deprive him of his civil rights.
  10. I (or any other C2SOT) could register it as an AOW for you ($5.00 NFA transfer tax), transfer it back to you, and short of you putting an actual shoulder stock on it, you can do whatever you want to it. Just a thought, downside is a 6 to 12 months NFA transfer wait.
  11. Benbow

    GUN TAX

    actually, he does not need the senate, or congress for that matter, to pass squat. All needs happen is ATF to declare that certain "arm braces" are shoulder stocks, and like I said before, I can think of a few that would easily qualify. then I can think of a way to plausably make the rest of the arm brace equipped pistols AOWs, but wont write it, less I give ideas, as I have not seen it articulated elsewhere. All done with a stroke of a pen. If you will remember back a few years, how surprised were was all that arm braces were approved in the first place.
  12. Benbow

    GUN TAX

    Then what did Agent Burnem find under your bed?
  13. Benbow

    GUN TAX

    SOME, and I stress, SOME of those "braces" are nothing but shoulder stocks, and we all know it. I make and sell both AR pistols and SBRs and I cannot really justify the difference with some of them. Others, I can. I would assume that. in 2021, many, but not all, "braces" will be catagorized as shoulder stocks, making those with pistol barrels SBRs. I think Trump is the only reason is has not happened yet. That leaves what do so with what out there. A good case exists that ATF must have an amnesty for these newly classified SBRs. If that is what happens, they cannot tax you to "register" the firearm, as under the NFA, the tax is for the making or transfer, not the registration. A tax for registration would be a "direct tax" and facially unconstitutional. That is why the 1968 NFA amnesty was "tax free", as were all form 1 registrations from 1934 to 1968, and all streetweeper registrations were tax free. We can only PRAY that if Biden makes things NFA that were not, that he mandates a $200 registration fee, as that will kill whatever he does.
  14. I just know that I deposed Jessica Trame (former head of ISP FSB) a couple of times, and in one of the depos, she testified that they were short staffed, including not having a hearing officer since 2016, and that they would like to have one, they are budgeted for one, but cant get approval to actually fill the post, and that what she does is sometimes just make the decision herself, if its obvious, and occasionally, they borrow one from another agency, but she could not remember the last time they actually borrowed one. If sending a letter demanding a hearing works for some people, I am all for it. Even if it doesn't, I'm all for it, as it makes the lawsuit that much better. The idea here is (1) get people their licenses, and (2) maybe make the process such a pain in the rear for the state that maybe, just maybe, we might get rid of it someday.
×
×
  • Create New...