BREAKING: ATF Declares the Franklin Armory Reformation a GCA/SBS Shotgun, Halts All Retail Sales

Franklin Armory Reformation

Courtesy Franklin Armory

See some our earlier posts on the Franklin Armory Reformation here, here, and here. While the Reformation may look like a short barrel rifle, it isn’t. That’s because the barrel uses straight lands and grooves.

gun barrel lands grooves twist

Nick Leghorn for TTAG

A conventional pistol or rifle barrel has twisted lands and grooves, as seen above. The Reformation’s straight-grooved design quirk was Franklin’s clever way of getting around being designated as either a rifle or a shotgun and avoiding NFA regulation due to the gun’s short barrel (Franklin offers them with either 7″ or 11.5″ barrels).

Even though the Reformation isn’t explicitly outlawed in the gun rights-challenged state of New Jersey, the state police decided it isn’t something they like very much and they banned sales of the gun in the Garden State. Franklin sued.

Now, however, apparently in response to all the hubbub, our friends at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms have issued an official opinion on the matter. In a letter dated today, the ATF has consulted its National Firearms Act ouija board, waived its regulatory wand, and declared the Reformation to be…a shotgun. A short-barreled shotgun. But not one that’s regulated under the NFA.

The Reformation is now a new critter altogether…a GCA/SBS. This genus is so new, in fact, that the ATF is having to gin up entirely new forms and procedures to handle it.

That means that as of today, FFL’s can no longer sell them (until the new forms and procedures are in place). To be clear, they haven’t outlawed the Reformation, they just need to develop procedures for selling them.

While the ATF’s letter doesn’t directly address this, it does not appear that the ATF will be pursuing Reformation shotguns that have already been sold to the public. For now. Owners are only prohibited from transporting them across state lines.

Here’s the letter:

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received questions from industry members and the general public regarding a new type of firearm produced by the Franklin Armory®. This firearm, known as the “Reformation”, utilizes a barrel that is produced with straight lands and grooves. This design contrasts with conventional rifling, in which the barrel’s lands and grooves are spiral or twisted, and are designed to impart a spin onto the projectile.

The ATF Firearms and Ammunition Technology Division (FATD) has examined the Reformation firearm for purposes of classification under the applicable provisions of the Gun Control Act (GCA) and the National Firearms Act (NFA). During this examination, FATD determined that the straight lands and grooves incorporated into the barrel design of the Reformation do not impart a spin onto a projectile when fired through the barrel. Consequently, the Reformation is not a “rifle” as that term is defined in the GCA and NFA. Moreover, because the Reformation is not chambered for shotgun shells, it is not a shotgun as defined in the NFA. Given these determinations, the Reformation is classified as a shotgun that is subject only to the provisions of the GCA (i.e., it is not a weapon subject to the provisions of the NFA).

Under the provisions of the GCA, if a Reformation firearm is equipped with a barrel that is less than 18-inches in overall length, that firearm is classified to be a short-barreled shotgun (SBS). When a Reformation is configured as a GCA/SBS, specific provisions of the GCA apply to the transfer of that firearm from a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) to a non-licensee, and to the transport of that firearm by a non-licensee in interstate or foreign commerce. These provisions are:

  1. 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4) requires that an individual wishing to transport an SBS in interstate or foreign commerce obtain approval by the Attorney General to transport the firearm.
  2. 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4) requires authorization from the Attorney General consistent with public safety and necessity prior to the sale or delivery of an SBS to an individual by an FFL.

The Attorney General has delegated the authority for approval of requests pursuant to these sections to ATF.

The Franklin Armory Reformation is the first firearm produced and sold by an FFL that ATF has classified as a GCA/SBS. Because GCA/SBS firearms have not previously been available in the marketplace, existing federal firearm regulations do not provide a mechanism to process or approve requests from FFLs for approval to transfer a GCA/SBS to a non-licensee pursuant to section 922 (b)(4) or requests from non-licensees to transport a GCA/SBS pursuant to section 922(a)(4).

ATF is currently developing the procedures and forms to address this new type of firearm. Once promulgated, these new procedures and forms will provide the mechanism necessary for FFL holders and owners of GCA/SBS firearms to request the statutorily required approvals. Until such time, you should be aware of the following:

  1. An FFL may lawfully sell/transfer a GCA/SBS, such as the Reformation, to the holder of an appropriate FFL (a GCA/SBS cannot be transferred to the holder of a type 06 or type 03 FFL).
  2. No mechanism currently exists for ATF to authorize a request from an FFL to transfer a GCA/SBS, such as the Reformation, to a non-licensee. Therefore, until ATF is able to promulgate a procedure for processing and approving such requests, an FFL may not lawfully transfer a Reformation configured as a GCA/SBS to a non-licensee.
  3. No mechanism currently exists for an unlicensed individual who possesses a GCA/SBS, such as the Reformation, to submit a request and receive approval to transport the GCA/SBS across state lines. Therefore, until ATF is able to promulgate a procedure for processing and approving such requests, the possessor or owner of a GCA/SBS, such as the Reformation, may not lawfully transport the firearm across state lines.

Any questions pertaining to this Open Letter may be sent to the Firearms Industry Programs Branch at [email protected] or (202) 648-7190.

Curtis W. Gilbert
Acting Assistant Director
Enforcement, Programs and Services

comments

  1. avatar Cc says:

    It’s time we start looking to disband the Atf, as unconstitutional. If they really cared about safety they would shut down the tobacco manufacturers that’s kill tens of thousand of American’s per year. They need to all get fired, and go find other jobs.

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      ATF are mostly bureaucrats who have the unenviable task of making sense of the garbage gun laws written by Congress. Put the blame where it belongs, on the legislators who are writing laws to regulate a thing they are largely ignorant of.

      1. avatar William Smith says:

        Much agreed. It isn’t ATF’s fault. In fact, the ATF clasified it the only way they could within the existing stupid laws. Put the blame squarely where it belongs – on stupid legislators in Congress who write unconstitutional laws to put regulations on something they know nothing about. I’m a FFL and even my ATF rep believes the NFA and GCA laws to be unconstitional. He and I both agree though that it’s better to deal within the evil that they are then to let even more stupid and ignorant idiots in Congress start rewriting them and making them even worse. The only intelligent thing Congress could and should do is repeal them. But that’s highly unlikely to happen.

        1. avatar Huntmaster says:

          They’ve agreed to enforce these garbage laws because they get paid good money. Nobody twists their arms.

        2. avatar Will Drider says:

          What’s not in the BATFE Notification is that when they were sent Mfr example of the Reformation with “a letter of design features” that clarified what it isnt (a rifle of shotgun): BATFE classified it as a “Firearm” without any restrictions. FA then went in full production of the “Firearm”. This will probably kill future production of the Reformation because folks aren’t going to want to do the paperwork nor have the same type of “NFA like” restrictions on movement across State lines, resale paperwork and corresponding delays.

          Just like bump fire devices/stocks, BATFE has now reversed and reclassified this Firearm to a new category: GCA SBS, which they are now coming up with definitions and “Restrictions” even though they say its still not a NFA item. This is new ground, another field of restrictions which mean “if violated there will be penalties (fines/jail time). States where the Reformation a popular workaround to AR/AW Bans often have a SBS Bans and this falls right in there. Can’t even rebarrel it as that falls into the AR/AW Ban.

          Anyone that doesn’t think the BATFE isn’t planning an ambush for those 12 & 20 gauge shorty firearms too: is fooling themselves.

        3. avatar Dwight Hansen says:

          Pistol braces too.

          As soon as they can figure out how to classify as a stock they will outlaw them too.

        4. avatar TweetyRex says:

          Sorry, but I must disagree. The BATFE has a standard playbook they use regularly on new developments.
          Step one: Take the sample the manufacturer submitted and approve it.
          Step two: Wait for the manufacturing to get into full production and the company to invest heavily in the new product.
          Step three: Change their mind. Drive small companies into bankruptcy, put a major financial hurt on larger companies and leave dealers with stock holding the bag, thereby maximizing damage through out the industry.
          I don’t buy anything new or unique for the first couple years of production.

      2. avatar Hannibal says:

        Congress is at fault but so is everyone in the system who decides to interpret the laws in any way beyond the clear language set out. See: bump stocks. There is nothing in federal law that should prohibit them. The definitions of machinegun are clear. Yet the ATF essentially wrote its own law under the guise of administration. That’s the problem here. If a law is not defined enough to enforce, don’t enforce it and let Congress write it better.

      3. avatar Chris Mallory says:

        By your argument the paper pushers who kept the trains running on time were innocent of what happened after the people were loaded onto the trains.

        If we did not have scum to carry out the orders of the legislators then those laws would go unenforced. The bureaucrat is just as guilty as the scum that passed the law. Anyone who helps enforce a law, from the lowliest clerk to the idiot that wrote it are responsible.

      4. avatar frank speak says:

        ….it would seem the ATF does what it’s told to do….

        1. avatar frank speak says:

          …..and they are in a constant struggle to justify their existence….

      5. avatar Mercury says:

        In this case, they’re patently wrong though. “Firearm” was the correct legal designation. It is neither a rifle nor a shotgun nor a pistol under the GCA and NFA. Reclassifying it as a shotgun under the GCA requires definining the straight groove barrel as a “smooth bore”. “Smooth bore” does not have a legal definition, so we use the plain language meaning. Lands and grooves, whether they twist or not, are the exact opposite of “smooth” no matter how you look at it.

        Bottom line, someone in the Civilian Disarmament Complex directed the BATFE(ARBF) to de facto ban these things and do some damage to Franklin in the process, possibly as retaliation for the BFS trigger. They’re just doing their jobs, yes, but their job is to make criminals out of law abiding citizens and sabotage businesses when they’re told to.

      6. avatar Mercury says:

        The Fostech Origin situation proves, in my mind, my earlier response. Someone, or a group of someones, appointed to the ATF apparatus, has been directed to inflict financial harm on those companies that would dare challenge the authority of the Congressional supporters of gun control, by the people who appointed them. These people are career bureaucrats and to refuse it would mean the end of their careers. As such, we find ourselves in the clown world, legislatively binding “ruling” that the riged barrel of the Reformation is a “smooth bore” and therefore a “GCA/SBS” and the Origin is a “GCA+NFA SBS” in spite of being a pistol under the same legal framework that makes AR pistols not “GCA+NFA SBRs.” Next year or in 2024, depending on the outcome of the presidential election, we’ll be seeing similar bureaucratic “rulemaking” bans on AR pistols and C&R pistols which historically have stocks.

    2. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

      Well, we have 2 options here – One, let the people who actually know something about guns (Das ATF) make the rules about guns, or, the true *nightmare* scenario, let those who know far less than nothing about guns to make the rules (currently Leftist-controlled Congress).

      The alternative to regulatory agencies creating laws out of thin air (like the EPA does with relish) is to turn the rule-making work over to the professional rule-makers – Congress.

      Do I need to remind you who currently runs Congress? And how no mater who runs it how they tend to do it badly, no matter what?

      I’m inclined to let the ATF, who actually knows what the fuck they are talking about when it come to guns, do that kind of work.

      But, hey, that’s just my opinion, man… 😉

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Agreed, completely. We should transfer ALL firearms regulation and enforcement to the exclusive control of ATF. And then disband ATF.

        1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

          This is a man who *GETS IT*… 😉

        2. avatar James Campbell says:

          Texas Larry for President in 2024.

        3. avatar napresto says:

          This sounds like a reasonable plan to me. We could follow it for Department of Education too… and possibly congress and the presidency. Only half kidding.

    3. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

      If any of you are familiar with the comic strip B.C. the artist would occasionally run a little strip concerning the dictionary and definitions. Once I read one. A very long time ago. The word was “dumbfounded.” The definition was, “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.” I think it’s still funny today.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “The word was “dumbfounded.” The definition was, “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.” I think it’s still funny today.”

        Wonderful play on words.

        1. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          Something else. If you’ve never read “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross, you should. Copies are hard to get and expensive. I read mine every couple of years.

        2. avatar Sam I Am says:

          Not familiar with that book. Got a bio on John Ross?

        3. avatar LarryinTX says:

          Yo, Gadsden! Rejoice!! There is a reason for that, the book has been released from copyright and is available online, in toto, for free. That’s why nobody is printing it any more. Just google it.

        4. avatar Roymond says:

          @gadsden–

          Expensive is definitely the case — a hardcover copy of the book goes for about $250!

        5. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          Sam, sorry, no bio on the author. Larry in Texas says it’s available on line. I wouldn’t know. I read books with paper pages. That said, every pro 2A firearms owner should read this book. While fiction, it is historically and technically accurate. Also covers aviation and automotive. And the overreach of the federal government in general.

        6. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Also covers aviation and automotive. ”

          Thanx. Will look for it.

        7. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

          Raymond, worth every penny.

        8. avatar James Campbell says:

          “Expensive is definitely the case — a hardcover copy of the book goes for about $250!”
          No doubt.
          I picked up the Hardcover bookset from Simpson LTD on the History of Borchardt and Luger Automatic Pistols, G83 thru P08, $300.!
          They sell a leatherbound/teak case set for almost $1000!

        9. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

          Here it is, in epub :

          http://www.solidfiles.com/d/ab94946bf5/

        10. avatar Sam I Am says:

          “Here it is, in epub :”

          Thanx; downloaded.

        11. avatar Roymond says:

          Go Geoff!

          It’s downloading slow… wonder if my roommie is pirating movies?

        12. avatar DiWA says:

          @Geoff

          Got it! Thanks!

      2. avatar Gadsden Flag says:

        One last thought on Unintended Consequences. Everyone I ever loaned my copy to returned it and said, “That’s the best book I’ve ever read!” Might be time I pulled my copy off the bookshelf again.

        1. avatar Someone says:

          It definitely was one of the most mind opening books I’ve ever read.

        2. avatar Tom in Oregon says:

          Yup. It’s permanently installed on my iPad.
          I read it about once a year.

        3. avatar James Campbell says:

          I added it to my “must read” list.

      3. avatar DiWA says:

        “…the comic strip B.C.”
        Wow. Now that’s an old file. I bet I could still find examples used as wrapping in my stored stuff.

    4. avatar Shaun Oliver II says:

      Here, here! I say AMEN brother!

    5. avatar arc says:

      Defund it and forbid any new hiring, within a few years, it will be paralyzed.

    6. avatar Red says:

      Tobacco does NOTHING compared to alcohol. Lost work, lost wages, broken families, drunk drivers, and the list goes on. But alcohol doesn’t even have to put a label on their product. Go figure. I don’t think anyone has killed anyone from smoking while driving.

      1. avatar frankspeak says:

        think we tried banning that once…

    7. avatar Ricky Moore II says:

      Never gonna happen. Especially under Trump who’s just as anti gun as Obama.

  2. avatar Billb says:

    Seig Hiel Mien Fuhrer (atf).

    1. avatar Steve Eisenberg says:

      Gezeundheit!

      1. avatar Rickster says:

        ” Gezeundheit ” German word for virgin !!

        1. avatar tsbhoa.p.jr says:

          kumzautlos, the other kind.

    2. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

      “Seig Hiel Mien Fuhrer (atf).”

      The alternative is to let Congress do it.

      The stuff we have been hearing about “Taking apart the regulatory state” and their laws by decree means giving that job to Congress.

      In this case, the Nazi is probably the sane choice.

      Unless you trust Pelosi?

      1. avatar Chris T in KY says:

        The Legislative branch is where this is suppose to be done. Not Bureau Rats. Let the put their name to banning a gun. Or any gun accessory. I can vote them out of office. No one needs the BATFE.

        1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

          It’s an evil choice, but I’m inclined to keep things the way they are, until SCOTUS rules on the constitutional issues relating to bang-sticks…

      2. avatar Red in CO says:

        You talk about is as though the existence of the ATF means congress can’t pass new gun laws, which is… puzzling. It’s not an either/or proposal and removing the ATF’s regulatory power doesn’t somehow give Congress more, it would just mean one less avenue through which we the people could be screwed

    3. avatar jwm says:

      vlad and miner49er just clicked their heals together and came to attention.

      1. avatar Ironhead says:

        Vlad and miner69er just.clicked their heels and came. On each other.

        1. avatar DiWA says:

          **** ***** ** LoL **** **** ******** with a melon ***** *** ****

  3. avatar Cruzo1981 says:

    And Franklin will have to stop producing reformations. I dont think anyone is going to bother to submit forms for that, if that is the way it’s going to go…

    1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

      “And Franklin will have to stop producing reformations.”

      Try reading comprehension.

      FFLs must halt sales, the company can continue to make and ship…

      1. avatar MouseGun says:

        I think what he’s saying is no one is going to throw down $200 for a tax stamp for a $2K meme gun that keyholes at 50 yards, when they can just use that tax stamp for an SBR that’ll cost a helluva lot less.

        1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

          “I think what he’s saying is no one is going to throw down $200 for a tax stamp for a $2K meme gun…”

          A whole lot more people know about them now, with the notoriety. I think they will sell just fine… 🙂

        2. avatar MouseGun says:

          But, literally, why? The whole point of this thing was to go around existing laws. Seeing how that it now falls under said laws, there’s no point for it to exist. For the same kind of money and same hoops have to jump through, you could get a real SBR (with rifling).

      2. avatar guest says:

        Continue producing guns that no one is going to buy. These are already a hard sale, and now…it was something different while it lasted.

    2. avatar William Smith says:

      The way I read it, it’s unlikely to be some kind of tax stamp form that needs approval. That only applies to NFA items. So, I suspect, they will do so using a form like the multiple handgun purchase form. For the buyer that means nothing since they never see it. They’ll buy the gun and it will get transferred to them with a NICS check when applicable. Then, the FFL would fill out a form and send it in to ATF where it would go into a huge pile of forms that seldom see the light of day. The tricky part for them in all this is the issue of transport across state lines.

  4. avatar Shire-man says:

    How dare you comply with the law as written!
    Putting up with the ATF is a lot like playing a game of Snake. Eventually the whole screen will be blocked.

    1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      Exactly my thought. How can sales of a current product – which is legal under current definition of law – be halted before any formal changes to the law or regulations can be determined, written, and distributed?

      And how are they gonna know who has these Reformations. Unless…registration databases, anyone?

      1. avatar William Smith says:

        They don’t know who has the current ones. The only ones who have those records are the actual FFL’s who transferred them. Even that record entry in the bound book doesn’t specify that the items transferred were Reformations other than by their serial numbers. I’m not sure what the FFL’s who transferred them used for firearm type since I haven’t transferred any – probably just “firearm”. Bound books are kept only by FFL’s. They don’t go to ATF until an FFL goes out of business or dies. There is no “registration” database of who bought what. That’s why if you buy a gun Monday and have a NICS check done, then you buy another a few weeks later, another NICS check has to get done. There is no database record of the previous NICS check. Also, when a NICS check is done, not even the mfg of the gun is supplied. Just Handgun, Long Gun or Other. As a FFL, I don’t see that there’s going to be any real issue with selling them. Probably just an extra form for them.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          LOL, you clearly don’t live in CA.

        2. avatar arc says:

          Pure fantasy if you think the feds aren’t making a list via NCIS, banks, credit cards, esp rewards cards. The ATF pretty much never visits rural FFLs, I recall mine mentioning that neither him nor the others dealers he knows have ever been visited by the ATF but I may be wrong, it was either once or never. Either way, it just doesn’t happen and the only thing they are allowed to do is visit during business hours and make copies with pen and paper, or was it taking notes only? No photo copies.

          If confiscation or civil war ever goes full swing, a lot of dealers will burn their books.

      2. avatar frankspeak says:

        “shorty” shotguns are already subject to registration in PA….

  5. avatar Ton E says:

    “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has received questions from industry members and the general public regarding a new type of firearm produced by the Franklin Armory®.”

    When will people learn…….

    1. avatar William Smith says:

      If you read the article though, it’s because of Franklins sueing New Jersey that ATF went and looked at it again.

  6. avatar Cooter E Lee says:

    Did the ATF originally approve this design and now determine it is a SBS or is this the first determination?

    I remember back in the “olden days“ when a bump stock wasn’t a machine gun but a 14 inch piece of string was. Whatever nonsense they come up with, we will find a work around.

    1. avatar GeorgiaBob says:

      I believe that the original process was something like; Franklin Armory sent the design specifications to the BATFE (aka ATF) requesting a ruling (per BATFE rules which are NOT in any enabling legislation) and received permission to produce the weapon as an NFA “other,” which does not require any special FFL handling or forms, and can be sold under minimum FFL rules. Only after the NJ state lawsuit got attention did the BATFE stick their nose into their own approval and mess it up!

      1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

        It was the least-damaging option open.

        Unless you want AOC telling you what guns you can own.

        It literally is that stark a choice…

        1. avatar Hydguy says:

          It’s time to start treating people like AOC as the enemies of the Constitution that they are.

        2. avatar Steve S says:

          Neither AOC nor Nazi Piglosi know anything regarding firearms except THEY don’t want us to have them. They can’t give a valid reason other than it “just feels good” to outlaw guns; except if the guns in question happen to be their property.

          BTW, does AOC stand for Another Obnoxious Cow?

        3. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

          “Neither AOC nor Nazi Piglosi know anything regarding firearms except THEY don’t want us to have them.”

          Uh, yeah. It’s clear to you now?

          That’s *why* we don’t strip the ATF of the power they currently control over guns.

          The whole concept of “De-fanging the regulatory state” sounds real good, until you see what the alternative is.

          It’s bad. Very, VERY, *VERY* bad.

          That’s one Christmas present I don’t want… 🙁

  7. avatar Biatec says:

    We are in a bubble on here. There are way more fudds than there are pro gun people. We will take gun control from republicans and cry about how dems want our rights.

    Don’t worry someone will reply telling me how the reformation is stupid and it doesn’t matter.

    It doesn’t matter that this is destructive to businesses and hurting people.

    It’s also all a plan to have it go through the courts. Doesn’t matter if it ruins a bunch of peoples livesi n the process.

    1. avatar Matthew the Oilman says:

      That’s because it’s Rush’s country, we just happen to live here. Why do you think bump stocks got banned?

    2. avatar George from Alaska says:

      I have far too many semis and NFA’s to be fudd-like but I know many who only appear to be Fudds… be wary of people who wear wool hats and actually hunt for food, many of them have the money for MP5s, suppressors and Noveske space guns…. they just don’t blab and post about it.

      1. avatar Biatec says:

        I know people who own ar15’s but want suppressors banned. People who own revolvers and 1911’s who want ar15’s banned. People who own all of those but think we need new restrictions still. It’s really frustrating.

        The worst part is it’s like debating a creationist. You have to go through each and every detail explaining why each law they support is wrong and then they still just move to another position.

        Some people just want the government to control everything. It’s too many people.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          I’m a creationist. Change my mind.

        2. avatar 41mag says:

          I’m a Creationist.
          You can’t change my mind.

        3. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          41mag,

          Me neither, but I’m curious as to what his ‘logic’ would be. I’ve never met an atheistic evolutionist who was able to provide sufficient evidence that there is no Creator.

        4. avatar strych9 says:

          I don’t take Biatec’s comment to mean that he finds anything wrong with Creationism or it’s adherents (though the comment suggests he’s not in agreement with either). He’s merely pointing out that Creationism is an article of faith and so for those who believe in it there is no argument since that’s not the way faith works.

          It’s akin what Augustine said about studying philosophy. When it was put to him that a rigorous study of philosophy might undermine belief in Christianity he simply pointed out that philosophy doesn’t work like that in practice. You can study philosophy all day every day and come to serious questions but at the end of the day if you started with faith you’ll still have it. If you started without faith you will not have found it. For those who have faith philosophy leads to a deeper understanding of that faith but it cannot undermine or create the faith itself because religious philosophy is a logic system built on that faith.

          I would also point out that in regard to the replies here that it’s not possible to “provide sufficient evidence that there is no Creator”. Evidence, and subsequently proof, of a negative proposition is impossible in and of itself. A negative proposition can only be proved by demonstrating positive existence of something that is mutually exclusive of the object which is the subject of the negative proposition.

          Proving that “God’s not real” is as equally impossible as proving that “there is no unicorn in the garden”.

          As a side note, this related to exactly why our Country is founded on the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” because proving yourself to be “not guilty” is almost impossible under a “shadow of a doubt” standard. It’s incumbent on the government to prove a positive statement (you did it) as opposed to you proving a negative statement (I didn’t do it). Because’s there is no unicorn in the fucking garden is how you hang people on a whim.

        5. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          @strych9,

          While I get the feeling that you and I are not necessarily on the same side of the “creationism” debate, your reply above is very well worded. You took the time to structure your thoughts and put them to text in a way that allowed me to easily follow your intellectual reasoning. And without the caps, yelling, or name calling that is so often the hallmark of certain participants here.

          THAT is the way healthy debates are held. Tip ‘o the hat to you, sir.

        6. avatar strych9 says:

          Haz:

          I’m not religious and therefore not a Creationist.

          The concept of falsifiable statements, which is basically the core of science, doesn’t pertain to religion. In that regard they are entirely separate things. Whether or not they support each other depends on your religious view but ultimately religion is a space where non-falsifiable statements are acceptable and science is not a place where such statements are acceptable. In that regard they are separate.

          IMHO whether or not science and religion are at loggerheads is up to the individual but there’s no intrinsic reason that the two ways of thinking cannot coexist within the same mind. Some particular tenets of faith may be challenged by science and vice versa but that’s up to the individual to reconcile and no one can do that for you. If you’re a person of faith it’s not a problem. If you’re not a person of faith it’s not a problem.

          Regardless of how you look at it science can inform religious views but the other way around simply doesn’t work. However, for those of faith this isn’t an issue. Well, at least it shouldn’t be if they have a decent education. There’s nothing wrong with seeing science as a God-given mechanism to better understand His creation(s) and come to a better understanding of God and therefore a deeper love of God. Any inconsistencies can be overlooked by those of faith as being part of “God’s Plan” because by definition as a human being you cannot understand God’s plan, which is why you have faith in God and His plan in the first place. If science undermines your faith then you never really had faith to begin with.

          I grew up with a foot in both ways of life. My parents and most of their friends were PhD scientists doing research and teaching at a University while the small backwoods town I grew up in was very religious. I never really understood why there should be any serious argument between the two considering that some of the very serious scientists at the University were also quite religious and never had any issues reconciling the two ways of thinking because they never really tried to combine them other than to say that science was their way of better understanding God.

          Ultimately when it comes to Creationism I look at it like this:

          I personally see no evidence for God/Creationsim and science produces no evidence for Creationism, Young Earth Theory or God in general. That’s not because God doesn’t exist but because science is incapable of producing such evidence because science is not an inquiry into the spiritual realm. Personally I like evidence and so, lacking evidence, I don’t choose to follow the religious path. However, that doesn’t mean that religious people are necessarily wrong. It’s entirely possible within the schema of religion that God created everything and has also given us a way to interpret what He has done so as to better understand Him. Where there are conflicts those could be 1) part of his plan which he doesn’t choose to reveal to us at this time but which has some sort of purpose later in time 2) human error or 3) something else so far over our heads that it’s not worth thinking about.

          The thing that drives me nuts about both sides in that particular argument is that they argue about what is said to no end without bothering to look at what is not said which is equally important.

          I note that the Genesis story has time gaps in it that theoretically could explain quite a bit about things if one were to forgo the assumption that God’s time scale is the same as our own and only read what the Bible actually says. For example, God creates heaven and Earth in Genesis 1:1 and His Spirit hovers over the waters in 1:2. We don’t get the “first day” until 1:5 but the Earth exists from 1:1 to 1:5 and the time scale is while God creates light is indeterminate. God being God how long did that take? Seconds? Millions of years? Billions of years? How long is a second to God? Is it the same as our seconds? Maybe, maybe not. We don’t even know what brand of watch God prefers. The Bible doesn’t actually say how long this gap is and who is anyone to actually say? That would require one to essentially speak for God on this topic which is pure blasphemy. From a scientific point of view a religious person has all the wiggle room they need right there.

          But even further, after God does his thing in six days how long do Adam and Eve spend in the garden before Eve encounters the serpent? Some period of time obviously but again in terms of our current ways of measuring time this is undetermined and at this point humans have no life-span set by God so it could be a really, really long time. And again after Eve discusses things with the serpent Genesis doesn’t actually tell us how long it takes for her to take the fruit and eat some of it. We just know that it happens “when she saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye” and after she talks to the serpent. How long is the time-frame here? Moments? Years? Centuries? Again, indeterminate from a scientific point of view and it also raises the question of what’s a second/minute/year look like to a nude immortal standing in God’s garden before that person has eaten from the Tree of Knowledge?

          These are all questions we cannot actually answer in concrete terms. They are firmly outside the realm of science and they provide any astute religious person with all the indeterminate time frames that they require to believe what they would like. To the scientifically minded person this possibility is also available because a religious scientist can simply say “OK, I agree with the generational time frame for the Earth being 6000 years old BUT I think Adam and Eve were in the Garden for 3.95 billion years before they ate the fruit.” and suddenly there is no argument because the Bible doesn’t tell us one way or another.

        7. avatar Roymond says:

          You’d like the ancient rabbis who on the basis of the text in Genesis concluded that the universe began “much smaller than a mustard seed”, i.e. infinitesimally small, and expanded to an immense size over unimaginable periods of time, and that the first five days could not have been twenty-four hour human days because there were no humans yet — so they had to be divine days, of unfathomable length.

          At least one also noted — and remember, this is before even astronomy could be counted as a science — that God didn’t directly form all life, but instead commanded the earth and the sea to “Bring forth!”, and so creatures emerged suitable to land or sea and to their specific locations.

          These were faithful men who lived and breathed the Hebrew text, so people today should humbly receive their wisdom.

        8. avatar DiWA says:

          @S9
          “IMHO whether or not science and religion are at loggerheads is up to the individual but there’s no intrinsic reason that the two ways of thinking cannot coexist within the same mind. ”
          Point.

      2. avatar frank speak says:

        ….just keep your head down and your shoulders hunched….and don’t draw attention to yourself….

  8. avatar Xaun Loc says:

    Yawn.

    The Reformation was just another of the Franklin Armory publicity stunts with no practical purpose other than to say We-Found-Yet-Another-Way-Around-The-NFA and this time the ATF decided they could play the same game by saying We-Found-Another-Silly-Way-To-Interpret-Another-Silly-Law.

    1. avatar George from Alaska says:

      Maybe if everyone hadn’t called them ATF nut kickers and every f’ing forum owner hadn’t posted about what a great work around they were they would have been left alone. I’ve never needed one but hate selective enforcement of anything.

      1. avatar Miner49er says:

        Correct, the squeaky wheel gets greased.

    2. avatar Huntmaster says:

      The ATF is taking the position that this is a shotgun because the barrel’s lands and grooves do not impart spin to the bullet. How is it a shotgun if it is designed for shooting bullets as opposed to shooting….shot?

      1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

        Are shotgun slugs like Brenneke considered bullets?

        1. avatar klaus Von Schmitto says:

          I may be wrong but I don’t think so. Wouldn’t a .735 diameter (12 Gauge) “bullet” run afoul of some other laws?

        2. avatar Someone says:

          It would mean a “destructive device” if shotguns weren’t excepted.

      2. avatar strych9 says:

        “How is it a shotgun if it is designed for shooting bullets as opposed to shooting….shot?”

        The ATF looked at the pattern the Reformation put out at 100 yards if you fired a whole mag and mumbled “substantially similar”?

      3. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

        “How is it a shotgun if it is designed for shooting bullets as opposed to shooting….shot?”

        If I’m reading and inferring from this article correctly, the difference is the definition of “shotgun” between NFA and GCA. Meaning, NFA has a fairly strict definition that doesn’t apply but GCA has a looser definition that they’ve decided does apply.

        1. avatar I Haz A Question says:

          Then why didn’t they just go with AOW, if it doesn’t fit into the established categories? Are we now going to have to deal with new classifications for every new design?

        2. avatar Eric in Oregon says:

          I’d imagine if it fit AOW they would have declared it as that.

  9. avatar anonymous says:

    I was waiting for something like this to happen, this is why I don’t buy “NFA Gimmick Guns” because the ATF can change its mind whenever it wants and before you know it things start to become a hassle. I think that a gun like the shockwave for example would be cool, but I just don’t trust the ATF to keep them legal and I would hate to get a letter out of the blue someday telling me to register it like all the street sweeper owners got back in the 90’s, thus I haven’t purchased a shockwave yet.

    “The Reformation is thusly a new critter altogether…a GCA/SBS.”

    When the ATF gets this definition finalized I wonder if it can be exploited to get cool new things outside the NFA the same way that the shockwave is a exploit of the “firearm” definition or the way that arm braces circumvent the SBR/SBS definitions.

    Also, for those who like DIY projects here is this:
    https://archive.org/details/gunplans2019

    1. avatar Bracemeslowly says:

      The difference with the shockwave brace (pistol braces), and shockwave 14” shotguns is that they’re owned by far more people than the ones that owned bump stocks. It will take a lot more than a new “opinion” by the ATF to outlaw them. They’re sold on just about every model of firearm that’s not a pistol. Sig MCX, CZ scorpion, AR15s from just about every company. This isn’t one business like FA or whoever made the 2 or so kinds of bump stocks. It would take a shooting and Trump to tell the ATF to reclassify them which is what will most likely happen..

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      “shockwave’s”…[and similar]…are selling quite well, though…and frequently out of stock..and the price appears to be dropping……

  10. avatar Grendal says:

    That is not how this was to work.

    What was is the OAL?

  11. avatar uncommon_sense says:

    Based on what I just read, it sure sounds like you could legally manufacture your own Gun Control Act Short Barreled Shotgun for your own personal use as long as you keep it in your state.

    So, if I FIRST attach a straight grooved barrel to an 80% receiver and then finish machining the remaining 20% of the receiver, I would have a legal firearm without having to file any paperwork, send any payments, or receive any tax stamps, as far as the federal bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives is concerned. (Assuming that I made it for myself, do not sell it, and do not transport it across state lines.)

    Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the above is not legal advice.

    1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

      I think like you do on this, but who wants to be the test case…

    2. avatar Someone says:

      That may be harder to do than it looks. Barrel in AR pattern rifles attaches to the upper receiver. The 80% part that requires finishing is the lower receiver (separate piece of metal or plastic). It may be possible to finish the 80 percenter with the barreled upper attached, but it would be very difficult. 😄

      Just pulling your chain, interesting idea.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        Someone,

        Actually, I think you have a valid point with respect to an AR-15 platform build.

        I suppose you could mill everything on the lower receiver except for the two holes for the trigger group and then attach the upper receiver and the barrel. At that point, it still is not a complete firearm since there is no way to attach a trigger to it. Then, and only then, you drill the final two holes for the trigger group and, voila!

        Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and the above is not legal advice.

  12. avatar M1Lou says:

    Reformation: Fires rifle bullet.

    ATF: It’s a shotgun!

  13. avatar Nanashi says:

    A SBS under the GCA but not the NFA? Not actually the first time the ATF has pulled this. The ATF considers a Mossberg 590 both sporting purpose under the NFA (it’s a shotgun, not a destructive device) and not sporting purpose under the GCA (the bayonet lug would disqualify it from importation).

    1. avatar M2AP says:

      The NFA definition of an SBS includes firing fixed shotgun shells. Its ammunition is not shotgun shells, so it’s not an SBS. The GCA definition of an SBS doesn’t make any mention of shotgun shells.

      I’m guessing they considered a straight rifled barrel to be smoothbore?

  14. avatar Sam I Am says:

    A government agency dies if it can’t find new problems that need solving….even if it has to first create the new problem.

    1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

      I don’t know about you, Samuel, but I’m not interested it getting AOC wet at the prospect of telling us what guns we can and cannot own.

      (Unless you’re interested in some *really* kinky stuff… 😉 )

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        “I don’t know about you, Samuel, but I’m not interested it getting AOC wet at the prospect of telling us what guns we can and cannot own.”

        Me, either. Just reporting that agencies gotta agency, in order to remain funded.

      2. avatar Someone says:

        She is already hot and bothered about our guns anyways. There is nothing in ATF’s existence that prevents Congress from passing more anti gun bs.

  15. avatar JR Pollock says:

    I’m writing this from memory, but have the article somewhere in my computer’s history, so bear with me.

    Apparently, Russian gun designers are every bit as clever and innovative as their American counterparts when it comes to designing stuff to skirt their ridiculous laws. Rifles are legal in Russia, but burdened with lots of regulations and fees, permits, etc., because the Russians know full well that you can’t overthrow a government without them.

    A Russian gun maker has produced a rifling-free rifle. It uses an oval profile that twists down the barrel, imparting the gyroscopic spin, without lands and grooves. No rifling? Not a rifle, according to Russian law, and can be purchased without all of the hassle. When the Reformation was in its pre-production “teaser stage”, I wondered if they had made use of that.

    Again, going from memory.. Stop! I just found a newer article. It’s called the Lancaster Oval-Bore system.

    https://www.guns.com/news/2018/02/23/this-oddball-converted-mosin-uses-oval-rifling-to-escape-moscow-gun-control-video

    1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

      I think a US-based Leftist judge will be happy to rule that is “close enough” to rifling to qualify.

      Remember the judge who stated he “would know it when he saw it”?

      (It’s a neat concept, though…)

    2. avatar Someone says:

      That looks like polygonal rifling with only two “valleys”.

      1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

        There could be an argument that the purpose of rifling is to impart spin on the projectile for stability, therefore, a rotating ‘oval’ bore that imparts spin on the projectile for stability could be considered a ‘type’ of rifling.

        Lawyers would have to argue that one. Wasn’t it Dyspeptic Gunsmith who mentioned that particular bore type here in TTAG?

  16. avatar My Government Is My Shepherd says:

    Without my government, how could I tell right from wrong?

    1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

      *Snicker* 😉

    2. avatar I Haz A Question says:

      I think there’s a list somewhere talking about ten statement regarding right and wrong, that’s been around a long time, way before even our gov’t came on the scene. Let me check…

      1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

        Wasn’t it really a list of 15, but one tablet got dropped? 😉

  17. avatar hippogiant says:

    GCA Definitions:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921

    NFA Definitions:
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/5845

    It looks like the GCA definition of “shotgun” doesn’t have the phrase “in a fixed shotgun shell” as in the NFA definition. And smooth bore doesn’t have to be cylindrical. Hence the rationale, I guess.

  18. avatar Tyrant says:

    Fuck the ATF.

  19. avatar MB says:

    Although the BATFE is suppose to be an expert resource on firearms and explosives, it appears they are only experts on the consumption of alcohol, because their last few rulings all sound like the author(s) were drunk…I’m not talking about agents, just the bureaucrats who think they can play congress and instantly make a rule magically a law. They should be allowed to only make rules as “best practice” and then congress decides if it’s worthy of the force of law, and enforcement. Of course the way congress has behaved recently has only proved it would never work. Neither the BATFE or Congress couldn’t find the ground even with a map.
    Time to disband the BATFE, and the IRS.

  20. avatar former water walker says:

    Profoundly unimpressed by this so-called “gun”…video’s are WTF?!?😄

  21. A government agency dies if it can’t find new problems that need solving….even if it has to first create the new problem.
    مشکلات دوران نوجوانی

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Weird echo in this place. No, we will not go to your site.

  22. avatar I Haz A Question says:

    And that, ladies and germs, is what Cames Jampbell has to say.

    1. avatar James Campbell says:

      That CJ guy is clueless IHAQ, thinks the ATF is “in his words”, FULL OF IT.
      I mean this is the ATF he’s talking about here, those guy will make the daily nut crushing I give him seem like a happy ending in an Asian massage joint.
      But, their his nuts (I just stomp them regularly), to each their own.

  23. avatar moreadventuresonotherplanets says:

    The ATF rules as it goes along including banning guns whenever they can get away with it. The amount of legal guns they have banned is long. They even banned a leather wallet holster without the gun in it.

    Anti-gun States like the Peoples Republic of New Jersey simply panic and ban them. Most of the East Coast States will also as well as the Peoples Republic of California.

    New Jersey said, since we are too damn lazy to study it and determine how it works, we will be on the safe side and just ban it. Then we will let the gun hating courts take the blame for not overturning the law. Its a win, win for us because we can tell the proletariat we succeeded in banning another evil looking gun and the courts ruled it Constitutional.

  24. avatar Ralph says:

    Words mean exactly what the ATF say they mean. Nothing more and nothing less.

    1. avatar Someone says:

      Ha, I thought that letter had a rather scornful tone!

      1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

        That was Lewis Carrol, wasn’t it in Alice’s Wonderland?

    2. avatar Sam I Am says:

      You left out, “At the time the ATF says them.”

  25. avatar The Crimson Pirate says:

    Get your pistol braces before the next ruling redefines them.

  26. avatar Anymouse says:

    I’m fine with the ruling itself. Franklin purposely made a gun to dance in the gray areas of the law, so it has to deal with uncharted territory. What I’m not fine with is the reversal of the ATF decision. The gun and laws haven’t changed since the original decision. They should have made this decision the first time around, or they should have let the original stand and have a court change it or tell ATF to change it. They could also make new decisions when somebody copied the Reformation idea, but it shouldn’t apply to the Reformation. What happens if someone make .223 sized shotgun shells? Does the Reformation suddenly transform into an NFA SBS and require stamps? If something becomes an NFA item, current owners should be given a free stamp since it’s not their fault ATF can’t make up its mind. Same with bump stocks – don’t make felons out of people who bought a product you said was ok.

  27. avatar Sam Hill says:

    Er… Jeffro youse knows is that whut? Nary a clue Jiminy Ray Bob boy, but ah’s knows shonuff ah’s doan lak it. Ookay den we’uns’ll jes unlegalize it. Kin we’uns do dat, we’uns done did said twer oky doky fer dems ta makit. Doan mattah nun we’uns de enforcementums, we’uns kin does whut eva we’uns lak. Side all dat we’uns sum school housed n edukayted an all lak thet.

    1. avatar Sam Hill says:

      The above was ATF inhouse memo, or could have been in my opinion.

  28. avatar jake says:

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/5289/text?r=1&s=1

    This bill that’s in progress will remove SBRs off the NFA.

    116th CONGRESS
    1st Session
    H. R. 5289

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove short-barreled rifles from the definition of firearms for purposes of the National Firearms Act, and for other purposes.
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    December 3, 2019

    Mr. Marshall (for himself, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Young, Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia, Mr. Steube, Mr. Budd, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Newhouse, Mr. Watkins, Mr. Babin, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Yoho, Mr. Meadows, Mr. Griffith, Mr. Hice of Georgia, and Mr. Estes) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
    A BILL

    To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to remove short-barreled rifles from the definition of firearms for purposes of the National Firearms Act, and for other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. Short title.

    This Act may be cited as the “Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2019”.

    SEC. 2. Short-barreled rifles.

    (a) In general.—Section 5845(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended—

    (1) by striking “(3) a rifle” and all that follows through “(5) any other weapon” and inserting “(3) any other weapon”; and

    (2) by redesignating paragraphs (6), (7), and (8) as paragraphs (4), (5), and (6), respectively.

    (b) Effective date.—The amendment made by this section shall apply to calendar quarters beginning more than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

    SEC. 3. Elimination of disparate treatment of short-barreled rifles used for lawful purposes.

    Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended in each of subsections (a)(4) and (b)(4) by striking “short-barreled shotgun, or short-barreled rifle” and inserting “or short-barreled shotgun”.

    SEC. 4. Treatment of short-barreled rifles determined by reference to National Firearms Act.

    Section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following:

    “(f) Short-Barreled rifle requirements determined by reference.—In the case of any short-barreled rifle registration or licensing requirement under State or local law which is determined by reference to the National Firearms Act, any person who acquires or possesses such a rifle in accordance with chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement with respect to such rifle.”.

    SEC. 5. Preemption of certain State laws in relation to short-barreled rifles.

    Section 927 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: “Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, a law of a State or a political subdivision of a State that imposes a tax, other than a generally applicable sales or use tax, on making, transferring, using, possessing, or transporting a short-barreled rifle in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or imposes a marking, recordkeeping or registration requirement with respect to such a rifle, shall have no force or effect.”.

    SEC. 6. Destruction of records.

    (a) In general.—Not later than 365 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall destroy any registration of an applicable rifle maintained in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record pursuant to section 5841 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, any application to transfer filed under section 5812 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that identifies the transferee of an applicable rifle, and any application to make filed under section 5822 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that identifies the maker of an applicable rifle.

    (b) Applicable rifle.—For purposes of this section, the term “applicable rifle” means a rifle, or weapon made from a rifle, described in paragraph (3) or (4) of section 5845(a) of such Code (as in effect on the day before the enactment of the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act of 2019).

    1. avatar Geoff "Bah, Humbug!" PR says:

      You *seriously* believe Pelosi will pass that?

      If you do, can I have some from your bag? 😉

  29. avatar Juice says:

    I’d imagine this is not exactly what they had in mind when they named it “Reformation.”

  30. avatar James Campbell says:

    Former? Currently working on and off as a Contract M.Engineer and Consultant.
    Gosh, TTAG has GOT to have the dumbest trolls on the ENTIRE internet.
    Stay Classy Fans, JC

  31. avatar James Campbell says:

    And curious, why the comments of little snippets of posts I made earlier in the day (on other TTAG stories).
    You seem to have A.D.D. or something, you should see a doctor about it.
    Could be a brain eating bacteria from tossing all that salad. I think this may be one of those times when a salad is NOT good for you CJ.

  32. avatar Kyle says:

    If Virginia will hurry up and fire the first shots in the next civil war, maybe we can do in the ATF once and for all. I’m looking forward to jumping into that one!

    If our government has proved anything over the last 2 weeks, its this.

    …its the enemy domestic.

  33. avatar David says:

    The opinion letter does not specifically mention the need of a tax stamp for the Reformation. If the BATFE only has authorization to collect the fee and issue tax stamps under the NFA regulations, how can they impose the same for this new firearm when it cannot be classified under the NFA?
    This is an interesting can of worms that could become a Pandora’s Box. But which side will suffer the plagues unleashed when opened?
    Remember what happened when Sen. Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules to allow Obama nominated lower court judges to be confirmed by a simple majority in the Senate? The door was opened for Sen. Mitch McConnell to further change the rules and allow SCOTUS nominees the same. We now, thankfully, have two new justices that would never be on the bench had that rule never been changed.
    This thing could go many different ways. Only time will tell.

    1. avatar Bill in Florida says:

      You’re absolutely right, David. See my post below warning “Be careful what you wish for” and recounting the Hughes Amendment disaster in 1986.

      It’s refreshing to see accurate, thoughtful information posted instead of one-liners that help no one. Thank you.

  34. avatar John Galt says:

    F*** atf agents!!!

    If they believed in the constitution they would not work for the agency.

    Prina facia NAZI’s

    1. avatar Gsmithy says:

      Yep keep writing the atf with the questions assholes. And the rest of ya stop giving them reason to because unfortunately they are on this mail chain and see your comments “hope they dont outlaw this”

  35. avatar john clark says:

    ATF has no power to make law!

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “ATF has no power to make law!”

      Than, and a nickel, will leave you with a nickel.

    2. avatar frank speak says:

      just the power to jail your ass…and they will if you give them a reason……

    3. avatar Bill in Florida says:

      This statement, while factually true, is either a poorly worded effort at sarcasm or shows complete ignorance of the federal regulatory system and is not true for all practical purposes.

      For those who are unfamiliar, BATFE (as are all federal agencies) is specifically granted regulatory authority over their respective areas of legislation. This regulatory authority is granted (in the case discussed here) in the United States Code (USC) Section 27, which is the body of law enacted by Congress that governs “commerce” in firearms.

      Federal agencies are granted their rulemaking authority through Federal Rules which are first published in the Federal Register–the “diary” of the federal government. A comment period on this draft “proposed rule” then commences where public input is accepted and reviewed by the agency/department/bureau. The comment period is where your input–your voice–makes the most difference. Agencies do regularly reject/modify/enact the proposed regulations (rules) based on the comments received.

      Once the commentary review is complete (usually 60 days), the agency (BATFE) then publishes the Final Rule in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). which contrary to the poster’s ill-informed post, DOES have the full force of the underlying enabling legislation.

      So while BATFE does not enact *laws* per se they DO promulgate regulations which have the force of law. Break the rule and you break the underlying law and are subject to penalty as provided for in the USC. On my book, they are one and the same, legalize aside.

      I do realize it’s a little confusing. The take-away is that when BATFE proposes a new “rule” it’s vitally important that we, as the firearms community, make our voices heard during the public comment period. It’s our only opportunity to change the course of the rulemaking process. Public commentary DOES have an impact. Proposed rules are regularly modified as a result.

      BATFE (as any federal agency does) has broad authority to interpret the USC and promulgate regulations which interpret the law. They have even more granular control over how those published rules (the CFR) are interpreted and applied, and THAT authority is the basis for the industry letters like the one Franklin Armory received.

      If you don’t think BATFE has the authority to do so, you should start your GoFundMe legal defense effort now.

      So while *technically* correct, you’re basically regurgitating a Facebook meme that is simplistic and idiotic. Details and nuance matter. If you want to play in this arena, get your facts straight before you injure others who may take your misleading opinion as fact and further damage our community–and possibly their own liberty.

      Ignorance will not help you when you proceed based on internet meme’s and snippets that oversimplify a subject which is anything but. Posts such as yours only damage our cause, not help it.

  36. avatar Sisted Twister says:

    Remember when Slidefire stocks were selling for 500 bucks on armslist right before Trump banned them?

    These will get tossed into the same pile as bumpstocks.

  37. avatar DiWA says:

    Interestingly enough, Cames Jampbell (Et Al) has increased my interest in what James Campbell has to say.

  38. avatar anarchyst says:

    Maybe its time to attack the NFA in the courts using a different tactic.
    The “tax stamp” is a “tax” and is purely administrative in nature.
    “Cruel and unusual punishment” is banned by the Constitution of the united States.
    Imprisonment for 10 years and a $10,000 fine for failure to pay a $200 tax IS “cruel and unusual punishment” and as such IS prohibited already.
    If there is to be a “tax stamp” they should be available everywhere on demand, and without restrictions.

  39. avatar Don says:

    RBG needs to go into the light ASAP!! Thomas is too Wishy Washy on the 2A to hear any cases. If the Democrats Win Both Houses of Congress and/or POTUS you might as well kiss you guns Good Bye wether by Bills passed in Congress or Executive Order. Grandfathering seems to be in the past. When the Dems win again, if we don’t have TRULY conservative 2A supporting judges in office and at least one more Conservative 2A supportive appointed SCOTUS Justice to offset Thomas’s BS.

    Because there is no pressure to buy right now, less & less people living in rural areas, and what seems to be a Generational Shift because of the amount of anti gun rhetoric from educational and the Media entities brainwashing people that guns are the root of all evil.

    The media & our lack of mental health care in the US is definitely the cause of the number of mass shootings. They media sensationalizes on these guys & girls committing mass shootings. This whole push to re-interpret what the forefathers meant in the constitution is hilarious as we can use the Fact they were using a Quill & Ink jar to write it we could interpret the 1st amendment to only cover that which is hand written if we are going to apply the that only Muskets were available.

    The 2A is the clearest of amendments and the only one using that famous phrase VFG desert

  40. avatar Bill in Florida says:

    I’m an 07 SOT FFL Manufacturer and 1000% Pro Second Amendment. I’ve been in the gun business for 38+ years. I’ve seen a lot of BATFE rulings and wish the law–and logic–were sometimes different. But I also work within the laws and regulations that control our industry–and our Second Amendment rights.

    I’m not bragging or inviting a bunch of “boomer” taunts–you’re wasting your time. I’m just asking you to think logically for a moment and consider this letter from ALL perspectives. This is not my first BATFE rodeo.

    Let’s try to all calm down and view this issue for what it is: one company thumbing it’s nose at the bureaucrats that regulate their products and expecting no response. And a mistaken approval of a firearm that falls outside what they’ve encountered before and putting a pause in to place while they sort out their mistake.

    I’ve posted elsewhere that Franklin Armory has a long history of unique engineering that thumbs its nose at the CFR and BATFE. The next item up.for grabs will be the binary triggers they sell. If bump stocks are classified as post-86 machine guns, I don’t know how you can make the argument that binary triggers aren’t as well.

    They’re just not on FTB’s radar.

    Arm braces will be next and every idiot that posts pics of themselves shouldering one is simply doing so to antagonize BATFE. The “arm brace” ruling (industry letters) defied logic. The device is designed specifically to thwart classification under the NFA, just as bump stocks were. You can argue all you want, but they are what they are and they are intended to thwart the law. Ate they *currently* legal? So far, and at the whim of BATFE, yes.

    I’ll bet most here don’t kniw that only the specific company’s and specific models of arm braces have been “classified” by BATFE under an approval letter that applies ONLY to that one item. Your airsoft eBay knock-off is illegal and not within the exceptions BATFE has allowed to slide. That will certainly change. Get caught with your non-approved arm brace and you are in real jeopardy. Yes, it could happen to YOU.

    Let’s take a look at all the AR “pistols” being sold.

    An AR-15 rifle caliber “pistol” is an artifice of regulatory confusion and specificity. Any uninformed person would call them what they are: short barreled rifles (by logic, not legalise). C’mon. You can’t get away with AR “pisols” and the Shockwave by waiving the CFR around and argue that “that’s what the exact wording of the law says” and then blame BATFE for pulling back on the Reformation. They screwed up. But they’re right–using the same logic that they classify an AR with no “full” stock and a short barrel as a “pistol” despite caliber or intended use. You don’t get to have it both ways because you don’t like it.

    Arm braces will be reclassified. It’s inevitable.

    If you want to invest your R&D in to a product, that by any reasonable definition, is designed outside the spirit or letter of the law, don’t be surprised when BATFE moves against you, especially when their “mistake” gets a lot of public attention, as with bump stocks did after the Las Vegas shooting. Pour gas on a fire and you should expect a big ball of flame. It’s as predictable as the sun rising.

    The Striker-12 was fine until Hollywood gangsta movies popularized them with wanna-be’s. Then they were determined to “have no sporting use”. They’re crap. I have two in inventory. Total shit. And now NFA regulated (improperly, I’d argue–but that’s for another day).

    Taunt the bear and expect to be eaten. It really is as simple as that. Don’t post selfies shouldering a “pistol” and expect BATFE not to take a second look.

    The Reformation is not definable under the GCA or the NFA except broadly as a “firearm”. The few knowledgable folks who have posted here have said so, too. I doubt more than those few have a copy of USC 27 or the CFR on hand, let alone have read, understand, and lived by, and within them, for decades. So if you aren’t intimately familiar with the regulatory logic behind the letter, don’t post opinion as unsupportable fact.

    A “rifle” by definition employs “rifling” which by definition is spiral in nature, and therefore imparts spin on the projectile. Straight grooves in a barrel does not make for rifling. Similarly, the Reformation is not a handgun or shotgun. And it does not meet the strict definition of an AOW either (although that’s what it is). And to top it off it has a bore diameter of greater than 0.5 inches.

    If anything, BATFE and the FTB should be shamed for approving the Reformation in the first place. Within the CFR, they are a new class of firearm and should have been identified as such in the first place and put on hold until BATFE could figure out how to classify them–or deny Franklin the approval letter.

    Some of the CFR and NFA regs are stupid, like the SBR classification. Suppressors should be declassified as firearms and sold like any other accessory. The issue is the lack of spine on the part of politicians who are terrified of being viewed as pro-2A and afraid to change the law. That’s where your ire should lie, not with BATFE (except for their initial mistake).

    Be careful of what you wish for. Those of us around in 1986 and who witnessed the Hughes Amendment shenanigans know exactly what I am warning against. We are fighting a rising tide–righteousness be damned. Only the Supreme Court or term limits can save us. Open a can of worms and you must expect that some will pop out. I’d rather see no movement than movement in the wrong direction.

    Bitch about $200 tax stamps and watch Congress adjust the tax for inflation. That would be $3,800 in today’s dollars. Anyone want that? A three word change to USC 27 that says “adjusted for inflation” would be onerous–and fully within the taxation clause and therefore would be constitutional.

    Again, be careful what you wish for–what can if worms you’re willing to open. The Law of Unintended Consequences is merciless.

    BATFE will promulgate a change to the CFR that broadens the AOW classification, and that’s within their regulatory power and the proper course of action under the current law. Don’t like that? Get out and vote, write your elected officials in support of 2A issues, and make your voice heard where it counts: in Congress and your state legislatures.

    Whining here accomplishes nothing. BATFE screwed up the approval but their logic is sound.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email