NFA question - AOWs/4473/DROS

[EBR Works]

Ok, here's the scenario:

An individual buyer purchases a complete single shot exempt AR pistol from us. Buyer takes possession after DROS/4473. Buyer gives the gun back to us for conversion to an AOW. Said AOW is created on a form 2. Said AOW is then submitted on a form 4 for transfer to the buyers trust. Upon form 4 approval:

1: Does another 4473 need to be completed?
2: Does the firearm need to be DROSd again?

My thoughts are that the original firearm ceases to exist once it becomes an AOW and is now a new firearm with transfer paperwork required.

I have asked several sources and ke6guj has posted this on several boards. We have received entirely conflicting answers. I tried calling the NFA inspector for California but she is on "leave" and was told that only she can give me an answer.

I also asked my IOI this same question and await her response.

What do you guys think?
.
.
.

[BannedinBritain]

I think California sucks...and my head hurts after reading your post.

But a new 4473 and DROS are required I believe.

[EBR Works]

I think California sucks...and my head hurts after reading your post.

LOL.

I know how you feel. I bought a pallet of Motrin when my SOT arrived.
.
.
.

[oaklander]

I would ping Jason. I tend to agree, however - with your original analysis.

[GoingQuiet]

Ok, here's the scenario:

An individual buyer purchases a complete single shot exempt AR pistol from us. Buyer takes possession after DROS/4473. Buyer gives the gun back to us for conversion to an AOW. Said AOW is created on a form 2. Said AOW is then submitted on a form 4 for transfer to the buyers trust. Upon form 4 approval:

1: Does another 4473 need to be completed?
2: Does the firearm need to be DROSd again?

My thoughts are that the original firearm ceases to exist once it becomes an AOW and is now a new firearm with transfer paperwork required.

I have asked several sources and ke6guj has posted this on several boards. We have received entirely conflicting answers. I tried calling the NFA inspector for California but she is on "leave" and was told that only she can give me an answer.

I also asked my IOI this same question and await her response.

What do you guys think?
.
.
.

Yes you 4473 after form 4 is approved. I would also re-register with the state as you've taken X firearm that was once legal - changed it to Y firearm with your own makers marks, you have a new item in the eyes of ATF and any other government regulatory body.

[EBR Works]

Wow, I have talked to several different, knowledgeable people today and everyone disagrees....
.
.
.
.

[ke6guj]

Yes you 4473 after form 4 is approved. I would also re-register with the state as you've taken X firearm that was once legal - changed it to Y firearm with your own makers marks, you have a new item in the eyes of ATF and any other government regulatory body.

if that is the case, why does ATF allow you to return that firearm directly back to the owner across state lines without needing to use an SOT in his home state?

The ATF AOW letter talks about it, http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...fore-grip.html , and some correspondence with a former NFA examiner who talked to Gary Schaible about the legality of a direct Form 4 return across state lines.

Okay, I spoke with Gary Schaible yesterday, who is the NFA Branch
Program Manager, in an attempt to get some actual references for you.
Here is what we came up with:

The NFA is silent on the issue - meaning if it doesn't specifically
prohibit it, then it is okay.

Where interstate transfer of firearms is controlled is the Gun Control Act.
Specifically Title 27 CFR Chapter II Part 478.147 (Return of
Firearms). I don't feel like spelling the whole section out, but any
FFL holder should have a copy of the Federal Firearm Regulations
Reference Guide and be able to look it up. It should also be available on atf.gov.

Hope that helps.

Dan.

[GoingQuiet]

if that is the case, why does ATF allow you to return that firearm directly back to the owner across state lines without needing to use an SOT in his home state?

The ATF AOW letter talks about it, http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/20...fore-grip.html , and some correspondence with a former NFA examiner who talked to Gary Schaible about the legality of a direct Form 4 return across state lines.

What does returning a firearm directly back to the owner have anything to do with it? I can return an NFA item without an SOT in home state to a lawful owner on a repair.

Here's the way I see it - and tell me if I'm wrong here.

Customer A brings firearm to EBR Works.

EBR converts firearm to NFA regulated AOW item via ATF Form 2. EBR Works has MADE AND REGISTERED said NFA item.

EBR Works then applies for tax paid transfer to Customer A.

As original item ceases to exist - and new item has been created, as EBR is the manufacturer on the filed ATF Form 2, delivery to customer on ATF Form 4 is required to have a 4473 pursuant to all retail sales over the counter. Additionally, as a new item has been created - any existing registration for the previous item can't be carried over. Hence, re-registration if applicable on a state level for the newly registered item.

If someone comes to me and asks me to make them a GQ branded AOW off their provided firearm, I am happy to do so. However if I don't 4473 the new item - or in your case, register the new item with the state - I would be seriously remiss in my duties as a firearm retailer.

[EBR Works]

I just heard from my IOI. She stated that ATF's position is that a 4473 must be completed with question #22 checked:

No NICS check was required because the transfer involved only NFA firearm(s).

As to California's requirements, she told me to contact DOJ.
.
.
.

[BannedinBritain]

I just heard from my IOI. She stated that ATF's position is that a 4473 must be completed with question #22 checked:



As to California's requirements, she told me to contact DOJ.
.
.
.

And the wheel goes round and round

[JagerTroop]

[GoingQuiet]

Form 1's are perfectly acceptable, just a lot of owners are intimidated by the process.

You are not factoring in the expense of engraving new makers marks on the item though, and that is required on all Form 1 builds.